Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:47:18 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2000 at 14:34:39, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On July 21, 2000 at 01:12:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >>On July 21, 2000 at 00:58:29, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>[snip] >>>My point is that giving away your source code doesn't necessarily make you a >>>better programmer. Saying that Bob Hyatt is one of the top 5 chess programmers >>>(partially) because Crafty is open source is bogus. >> >>Crafty recently won a high profile internet event, with the best commercial >>engines participating also. >> >>Crafty is *without any question* the strongest freely available chess engine. >> >>To offer *THAT* source code to the public is a service so large it cannot be >>expressed properly, except in the most glowing terms. > >Actually, I can express it in less than glowing terms: >1) ICC is polluted with Crafty clones. If those people are having fun, what's wrong with it? Noplay them, if you don't want to deal with them. >2) Crafty clones show up at official CC tournaments. Remmington makes a rifle. Joe buys one and uses it to shoot the president. Remmington is evil. Maybe not, maybe it's Joe who did something wrong. >3) Why write your own program if Crafty's source code is open and it would take >years to make a program that beats it? Because you want to accomplish something? I considered writing a crafty clone, and even asked Bob for permission at one point. But then I abandoned that idea and decided to do it from scratch. >4) People worship Bob only because he gives them free stuff. I have lots of free stuff from lots of people and I don't worship any of them, Bob included. I *like* Bob because of many factors. 'Free stuff' is certainly one of them, but probably the least important. To put people in a box and label them as self-centered in that way is a strange sort of stereotyping and not accurate, I think. >I'm sure there are more reasons to be unhappy with Crafty, and I know I'm not >the only person who feels this way. The reasons seem silly to me, but then again, I'm not annoyed. I imagine if I was annoyed, the reasons would seem sensible. >>Crafty epitomizes all of the most efficient techniques in modern chess >>programming. > >Sure, if you like bitboards... And I do. That is not the only approach that is interesting to me. I think Colin Frayn's move generator is very nice. I think Martin Borriss' move generator is very nice. I think Dieter Buerssner's move generator is very nice, and none of them are based upon bitboard. [I also like Amy very much which *is* bitboard based.] I have even given thoughts to a "situational" approach where the move generator has a fundamental internal representation but generation can be done either with bitboards or with some other method, depending upon the current situation, etc. I think it is a very big mistake not to study every feasible approach and not fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of that approach.
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.