Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:56:19 10/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2000 at 09:50:24, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>On October 18, 2000 at 18:11:41, Ratko V Tomic wrote:
>
>>We are not dealing here with a formal system where one could prove to you one
>>way or the other by offering a chain of logical deductions from a commonly
>>accepted premises to the conclusions.
>
>right.
>
>>Another factor to take into account is that its current impressive
>>performance, the scores and the beta testers' judgments/impressions, is achieved
>>by a largely untuned (at least in its key novelty areas) new engine. Either
>>Christophe was very lucky to strike the right tuning values in the first few
>>shots (so it won't improve noticably in version 2), or he did come up with
>>something really new, an entirely new evaluation technique perhaps, which will
>>boost the state of the art by at least couple hundred points, while making games >much more enjoyable to humans, by the time it gets fully refined and extended to the other aspects of the play (besides king attacks).
>
>christophe is on the right way, and so are others.
>this will be the next movement in computerchess.
>
>
>>In any case, it is unfair to classify it at this stage as just another gimmick,
>>some kind of cheap king safety evaluation tuning effect that many have toyed
>>with and failed with.
>
>right. i dont understand that bob is not seeing it.
>as a professor for computerchess he should in my opinion be open for any
>new ideas and developments. i mean: he should promote new ideas and not
>argue against them !
>
>if everything would stay the same in life and science, we would still sit
>on the trees and eat bananas.
>
>its the job of somebody working at institutions that work in this field
>to push and care on new developments, and not to pull them back and
>to deny that they exist or whatever exorcism bob is trying to deal with.
>
>
>> I think it is already doing much better than what such
>>cheap "novelties" would have shown. Reading between the lines of Christophe's
>>posts here during the last year, I do see hints of a crystallization process of
>>a new technique (which ended up as GT),
>
>at least christophe is on the way to alice in the wonderland.
>the mirror world.
>
>>something which grew out of, or was
>>inspired by, some kind of cross between Lang's and Kittinger's ideas (at least
>>as he glimpsed at them through the reverse engineering of their programs).
>
>oh come on. reverse engineering. thats what vincent always comes with.
>i think this is wasting time. the guys you spy at, have no better ideas than
>you have, why should it make SENSE to find out how richard has done it.
>thats last century technique.
>Kittinger maybe.
I don't need reverse engineering to understand what other programmers do. It's
clear enough when you play with a program for some time.
At least it is my impression.
I think other experienced chess programmers can do the same.
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.