Author: Tony Werten
Date: 11:50:52 12/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2001 at 14:06:59, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On December 22, 2001 at 04:10:49, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On December 21, 2001 at 17:02:52, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On December 21, 2001 at 12:14:47, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On December 21, 2001 at 00:43:18, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 20, 2001 at 21:19:44, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 20, 2001 at 20:12:06, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On December 20, 2001 at 18:30:51, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On December 20, 2001 at 17:56:17, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I can't think of a reason why commercial programmers would have an edge over >>>>>>>>>amateurs when coming up with good ideas/techniques. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>When an amateur programmer comes up with lots of good ideas/techniques, then >>>>>>>>he'll have success and go commercial eventually. I think that's how Shredder and >>>>>>>>Junior proceeded. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Right, but Shredder and Junior's authors had their good ideas when they were >>>>>>>amateurs and implemented them in their amateur programs, which confirms my point >>>>>>>that amateur programmers can have/implement good ideas just as well as the >>>>>>>commercial programmers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-Tom >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Of course. The difference is the amount of time/energy one is ready to spend. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Christophe >>>>> >>>>>Well, based on your last two reples to my posts, you agree with me completely. >>>>>So why all the noise to Scott about how commercial programs use vastly >>>>>different/superior techniques than amateur programs? >>>>> >>>>>-Tom >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Because they do, and it is the result of the amount of time and energy spent on >>>>it. >>>> >>>>I would not even say that the techniques are vastly superior, but there are a >>>>number of differences that end up in a significant strength difference. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>>Then we're disagreeing again. I still believe that whatever techniques you're >>>using can also be found in amateur programs. >> >>Could be. But it's very possible that in these programs, these techniques don't >>really shine because of the existance of bugs, and the lack of finetuning. Both >>can be solved with a lot of time. >> >>Tony > >Oh, absolutely. I'm not trying to claim that amateur programs are just as good >as commercial ones--that's stupid. But it seems like there's a relatively small >number of good ideas in chess programming, I don't agree. I myself have already tried dozens of new ideas. Most of them I tested and they didn't work. Given more time I might be able to improve them or find out that 2 notworking ideas together give good improvement or at least implement them really bugfree. >so I'd be surprised if Cristophe or >any of the other commercial programmers have come up with anything that hasn't >been implemented before in amateur programs. Being able to spend your mind the whole day on computerchess should give a lot of ideas and the possibility of testing them. For the last 2 years I'm having more ideas than I can test. >Quality lies in the implementation. As well of course. Tony > >-Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.