Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:33:40 12/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
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. >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 absolutely sure that some people will again misunderstand my lines. but >that are the facts about fruit/toga and i would have wished that the people >would also accepted these facts. but it is only a whish. > >merry christmas > >Thomas I'm a real lay in programming compared with you, Thomas. But even I can well understand what you have achieved. With programming tech you could improve the original program by margins. I think that this aspect can't be denied or doubted. In fact I think nobody here sees your achievement as something unimportant or irrelevant. When I read your message I have the doubts considering statistics, as I wrote in a message to Uri for example, and then I have a fundamental question or critic. I can sum up that question as follows: isnt it a relevant problem for you to reflect and consider the way you had presented your "improved version" of FRUIT? In one of your first reactions to me you reacted as if you've understood me as if I had said or wanted that you should completely go into silent mode. I want to confirm you that this is wrong. I did NOT mean it. However what I wanted to express was this: in your reactions on collegues, who wrote some critics or just asked questions, you adopt a position that really looks a bit, well, not so well suiting. I mean, for me the alleged improvement in the given extension is by far proven, Thomas. And then, apologies yes or no, there is this little aspect that at a certain time you pretended something that wasnt true. All together these two points, I want to say that I dont see why you still defend your Toga in such a strong manner. Why? You are right in the middle of other programmer collegues to whom you've shown your good talents. Why not just reacting in a positive and productive way on Gerd's proposal. Talking about actual programming tech. Instead of defending in the so-called strength topic between Fruit and Toga. Fruit will always remain the original and you just cant change or totally re-write Toga into a completely independent program. Why not continuing your productive way and create something really new? The example of Rybka is more than proving the possibility of such approaches...! I really hope that you can find a productive and positive way out of this circle of defending a somewhat not crystal clear attempt with Toga. I can repeat my confirmation that I do NOT want that you leave this field regarding all your talents which you have proven to all of us, even to me as a lay. :) Sorry that I couldnt say it in two lines, I'm just not experienced enough. All the best Rolf
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.