Author: James Robertson
Date: 07:41:29 03/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2000 at 01:31:34, Christophe Theron wrote: >On March 29, 2000 at 22:13:55, James Robertson wrote: > > > >>Are you sure this picture is true for Ferret? > > >No idea. But Bruce himself admitted that it was hard to consider Ferret as an >"amateur" program, as he can spend a LOT of time on it. > >However it is not my intention to enter the "who is commercial who is not" >debate. > > > >>Does this really match Zarkov's style? > > >As far as I know, Zarkov is a commercial program. > > > >>Can you imagine this happening to Crafty? > > >You really want my good relationship with Bob to deteriorate? :) > > > >>Have you ever seen LGoliath unable to mate a QK vs K? > > >I have never seen LGoliath. > > > >>Is it not true Insomniac placed 3rd at the ICC tourney, >>tied with a commercial program on superior hardware? > > >So Insomniac has never encountered any of the problems I described? It encountered all of them and more. But it doesn't encounter any of the huge bugs anymore. It usually loses in blitz when it misses a deep tactical combination, and in longer games when it loses control of the center and gets passive positions. It doesn't lose because it can't manage its time or fails to mate with a K+Q vs K. > > > >>Is AnMon really such a pathetic opponent? > > >Did I say so? Any program with all those problems manifested in one 10 game match is. :) > > > >>Etc. etc. etc. etc. >> >>I think some of you commercial guys are too puffed up. I understand that the >>commercial programs are usually better, but be realistic. There is much evidence >>against the pathetic picture you paint below, even not counting such fabulous >>programs as Ferret. >> >>Maybe you are joking and this is all jest. Still, until that is proven, I'm >>offended. :) > > >You should not. Reread what I have written, and this time replace "amateur" by >"Chess Tiger in 1997-1998". > >All I have written happened to me, when I was on the amateur side. > >BTW I don't feel like a different person now that I am on the "commercial" side. >All this is virtual. > >At some point you think you have a great amateur program. And you have. But it >happens that your commercial opponent's greatest pleasure is to beat you on >small unsignificant details. And it gets on your nerve hard. And to fix this you >have to spend thousands of hours of boring work. > >That's IMO the ultimate difference between good amateur and good commercial >programs. Is it an offense to amateur programmers to say so? To say what you just said, no, not offensive at all. I think it is true that commercial programs are better, and that they often win on small insignificant-seeming details. But to say that amateur programs lose 9.5 to .5 because they can't mate KQ vs. K is not exactly realistic. IMHO. James > > > > Christophe
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.