Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 19:40:16 12/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2001 at 22:26:47, Christophe Theron wrote: [snip] >"Copy, paste" is a metaphor. > >It's "copy, paste" of the METHODS not of the actual code. > >When I say "Crafty clone" I mean "Crafty methods clone". Like what -- use of null move? Use of negascout pvs search? Is something else really a lot better? I have researched many search algorithms and I try them all. I also try to invent my own ideas. Crafty does not use some other things that I have tried (and will revisit again). And a lot of techniques that you see all over are the same ones as we see in crafty. No wonder, since crafty has been open source for ten years and most of the newcomers are far younger than that. Crafty and GnuChess were the only Winboard engines to look at for a while. I think that there are probably more 0x88 type engines than bitboard. A lot of people like MTD(f), and I found another very simple interesting search algorithm in a paper that I am going to try. I also have some of my own ideas. One example is to speculate by quickly tracing the pv (sort of go into auto-play mode at [e.g.] one second intervals and go forward 10 plys or so like that. The idea is to help out move ordering and also to see some disasters that loom over the horizon. Obviously, this works better with more cpu's than with just one. Also, if I have a CPU farm, I have an idea that I have discussed before, where they cooperate and search the most promising lines. With this type of search we have much more information than alpha-beta will give, because I have a score for every forward position root. >For me it's the same. I do not see where the creativity is. I don't think you have studied the source code of other engines. All of them are different. All of them are creative. All are interesting. I have really seen one or two engines which are just a quick clone with a tweak (I find this out by binary snooping because those who will publish their code would not be so brazen as to do this). But almost all engines are interesting and highly original. In other words, I think you will find creativity if you look carefully. Mostly, I think you just are not very interested in what other people have done and prefer to think things up by yourself. That's certainly a noble attitude, but one that does not work well for someone as lazy as me. >I repeat that I consider writing a chess engine, even under these conditions, as >a great personal achievement. It's something that counts in your life. > >What I do not understand is the reason why we should celebrate the number of >such engines. They are extremely valuable for the persons who have been able to >write one, but are they for other people? Suppose that there are only two sculptors in the world. Then suddenly there are one hundred. Mabye the first two are the best, but the new ones will get better. >Naturally there are exceptions. Amongst the Winboard engines there are very >valuable ones. All of them are valuable, if they are the object of enjoyment for someone.
This page took 0.01 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.