Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:08:15 12/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2005 at 11:18:44, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 24, 2005 at 10:56:25, Thomas Gaksch wrote: > >>it is very difficult for me to describe this in english. >>first of all i want to clarify, that i always thank fabien for his great program >>fruit and everything he did for computer chess. an of course he is a great >>programmer and a great person. no doubt about that. i have never said anything >>else. i also have never said that i am the great programmer and that toga is >>full of new ideas. i have also never said that fruit wouldn´t be as strong as it >>is without toga. >>i just read the comments from ryan, uri, tord (programmers) and others about >>toga and i am very dissapointed from their statements. but i think there are >>some facts. >>first of all the most important fact is playing strength. >>CEGT 40/40 Fruit 2.1 = 2713 ELO >>CEGT 40/40 Toga II 1.1 = 2767 ELO >>CEGT Blitz Fruit 2.1 = 2703 >>CEGT Blitz Toga II 1.1 = 2767 >>and if you critizise me that i only wrote 47 lines of code for this improvement >>than i think that is not a negative point. not the quantity of lines is >>important. > >I agree that it is not a negative point. >I did not attack you in my posts and I only defended fabien against attacks that >claimed that you are better programmer than him. > > >>and if you critizise me that i invented nothing new than i can only say that it >>is true. why should i invent something really new, if it is possible to improve >>fruit with known techniques. >>you say that it is so simple what i have done. thats partly true. but believe me >>or not i invested a lot of time in testing und finding the right techniques >>which improved the playing strenght so much. if everything is so simple and fast >>to implement, why hasn´t done it fabien in fruit 2.0 or 2.1? i think fabien >>hastn´t done it, because he didn´t believe that these techniques would increase >>the playing strength so much. there is absolutely no doubt about it that it >>would be easy for him to do that. and it is 100% clear that he never used toga >>code in fruit. but i think i showed him the techniques which worked in fruit >>very well. so he saved a little bit time in testing this things because he saw >>in toga that it will work. >>i also said that i would never release a clone if it is not better than his >>original. so if ryan writes derogative about toga than i only can say "do it >>better". but you release one beta after the other and no beta is really stronger >>than toga 1.1. so you see it is not so simple to improve an existing engine like >>everybody thinks. > >I am not sure if you are right here > >http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/ratingall.html > >8 Toga II 1.1 2768 15 15 1319 60.8 % 2692 37.2 % >12 Gambit Fruit 1.0 Beta 4bx 2743 39 39 229 51.5 % 2733 26.2 % > >The statistical error of Gambit Fruit 1.0 Beta 4bx is still too high to claim >that it is not better than TogaII 1.1 > >Uri Good to see that you made this point, Uri. After reading Thomas one could think that the difference found between Fruit and Toga of 50-60 points is a proven and iron law. Also regarding the known fact that a newer version of a program is _always_ "better". So - basically I cant understand this. If the author of the original program would improve something the program would _also_ get better results. What is the point of the whole debate? I mean the positive aspects. (While we want to forget about the negative ones for good reasons.) Could you give your personal view on the topic, please?
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.