Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 03:31:44 08/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 1999 at 19:13:20, Peter McKenzie wrote: >'Everyone' knows that Voyager is just crafty with maybe a few minor hacks to the >evaluation or search. This issue was examined in depth some months ago. > >It is easy to take someone elses program, and make a few minor changes to it >that significantly alter its playing style bug keep the strength pretty much the >same. Just a few lines of code in the Evaluation function will do this. > >It is also easy to copy large chunks of another program (move generation code, >input and output code, make move, undo move, parts of search function etc). > >I suspect both of these approaches are pretty common, and from a software reuse >prespective they are a good idea. There are a few disadvantages to this >approach though: > >1) The WCCC rules give preference of entry to programs that are 100% original >source code. >2) It is hard to significantly improve a program that if don't have a intimate >knowledge of the underlying infrastructure. If you copy this infrastructure, >you are unlikely to have this knowledge. > >For programmers such as myself who develop their programs from scratch, it can >be a little disheartening to see your program lose to a brand new program. 'How >can my program, the result of 5 years hard labour, get smashed by this brand new >program that has been written in 2 weeks?' we ask. When I realise that the >'brand new program' is largely just a copy of crafty or some strong mature >program, I don't feel so bad :-) > >cheers, >Peter Yes, Peter. The issue was examined in depth some months ago. Voyager is a most interesting program that I spent a lot of time with. It is a modified Crafty. Djordje
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.