Author: Thomas Gaksch
Date: 23:51:57 12/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 2005 at 23:45:10, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 24, 2005 at 19:08:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>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? > >The point is only that I contradict unproved statements. >the claim of thomas was "no beta is really stronger than toga 1.1" >It may be correct but it is still not clear. thats true uri. i only wanted to say, that it is not so simple to improve an given source code by a margin of 20-30 elo. ryans starting point was toga 1.1 with an elo of 2768. his goal should be 2790-2800 elo. i hope he will be sucessfull now or in the future. that would be very good for the fruit project. > >Previously I defended fabien against the claim that Thomas Gaksch is better >programmer and showed that the claim that thomas had more success than fabien in >improving fruit is wrong. it is good that you defend him because you are absolutely right. and i wanted to clarify that these people do definitely not represent my opinion. > >Uri
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.