Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 14:08:35 06/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2000 at 11:49:26, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 11, 2000 at 22:18:41, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On June 11, 2000 at 21:38:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 11, 2000 at 17:46:32, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>In the January/February issue of CiSE, there was published a list of 10 >>>>algorithms having "the greatest influence on the development and practice of >>>>science and engineering in the 20th century" . You can see this here: >>>> >>>>http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/personal/jborwein/algorithms.html >>>> >>>>Which I found this to be quite interesting, so naturally I wondered what the >>>>membership of CCC thought were the Top 10 Computer Chess Algorithms & Techniques >>>>having the greatest influence on the development and practice of Computer Chess. >>>>I'll get things started with my Top 10 List: >>>> >>>>1. Alpha-Beta search Algotihm >>>> >>>>2. Iterative Deepening >>>> >>>>3. Transposition Tables >>>> >>>>4. Null Move Pruning >>>> >>>>5. Chess Game Databases (Chessbase) >>>> >>>>6. Ken Thompson's Endgame Tablebases >>>> >>>>7. Judea Pearl's Scout Algorithm >>>> >>>>8. Bitboards >>>> >>>>9. Tim Mann's Winboard >>>> >>>>10. Robert Hyatt's source listing of Crafty >>>> >>>>BTW, I've tried to place items in the list in order of importance. The first >>>>four were easy, but I would expect a lot of disagreement in the next 6. In fact, >>>>I disagree with myself here. It's not easy. Deep Blue ought to fit in there >>>>somewhere. Also, I made a half-hearted attempt to include attribution, so any >>>>additional information or corrections will be appreciated. >>>> >>>>I can't help but notice the absence of commercial programmers from my list, but >>>>I think this is due to their keeping their methods "secret". History may >>>>remember their programs, but credit them with few innovations. >>> >>> >>> >>>I would delete 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. I don't think the source for Crafty has been >>>an "important event". Gnuchess source has been out far longer, as has the >>>source for other programs like Sargon, Cray Blitz, chess 4.x, who knows what >>>else. >> >>Perhaps, but don't you I think your source has been more influential? Being >>first isn't everything. How influential a work is must be factored in too. > >What do you mean by "influential"? Do you mean that people have copied code and >algorithms from Crafty, i.e., cheated? I don't think this is such a great >quality. I think what I mean by influential is deliberately ambiguous. I don't have a strong opinion about items 5 - 10 in any case. So criticizing any of those does not bother me. I really have no interest in the list _I_ generated. I just put it out there as an example to help people come up with their own list. What I am _really_ interested in is the list _other_ people come up with. I want to know how _you_ think the word "influential" should be interpreted. So what would be your list? > >Crafty is obviously the highest-profile open source chess program, but I don't >see that it contributed anything new or innovative to the community. > >-Tom
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.