Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 15:19:53 12/25/05
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 do not know the history of Toga but surmise from reading that it is a variant of Fruit 2.1. If so, and based on the tone of your message, I know what I would do. I would (if I hadn't already) release the full Toga with the changes you described (or just the diff listing against Fruit). Then I would sit back and take a break from computer chess for a few weeks months (or years). The chess bug will bite again. No sense in feeling bad about it. There's lots more to chess. In the times I give up chess and computer chess, I get more important things done. It is, after all, a hobby, not a vocation. Your mileage may vary. Best regards, Stuart Cracraft
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.