Author: Peter Berger
Date: 08:37:38 12/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2001 at 21:53:53, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 20, 2001 at 17:07:05, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On December 20, 2001 at 14:04:24, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>120-150 amateur Winboard chess engines, 90%-95% of them being essentially >>>partial Crafty clones (I mean using the same techniques, or only a subset of the >>>same techniques). >> >>How do you know? Some Harry Potter trick ? Alorama. > > > >You just have to read the questions asked here by people writing new engines. > >It's all about very classic stuffs. Alpha beta, move ordering, hash tables... > >Nothing new. > >All these questions can be asked by: "look into Crafty source code, copy, >paste". > Well, most of the amateur programmers _never_ post any questions here. It seems the ones who do are usually the beginners. It is logical that many of them want to understand what others have done first. > >>Why isn't it enough to be at the top ? Is it really necessary to discard the >>efforts of others who can only afford to spend so much less time in their >>work ? > > > >My point is that I think that the human brain works on chess in a significantly >different way than what "classic" chess programs do (and mine is included). > >I have this idea since a very long time, and I have tried to work on this. To >say the truth, I failed. My program is extremely selective, but nowhere near >what the human brain is able to do. > >I think it's a pity to see these young guys just writing Crafty clones instead >of trying to tackle this very interesting problem. In this sentence "Crafty" >means for me "an excellent academic chess engine". > >But naturally there is more glory in quickly writing a classical chess engine >that works and, thanks to the improvements in hardware speed, is going to beat >the strongest chess player of the university after one month of two of >developpement. > > >You say I'm at the top. Okay, I'm at the top of what? > >I'm at the top in the field of people writing sophisticated calculators able to >play chess. > >Sure it requires some technological skills, time, devotion and energy. > >But this is a dead end. The future of computing is not here. IA is not here. > >I'm sorry to see so many people following this path which, in my opinion, >belongs to the past. It has been a glorious time, I still love it, but the >future is not here. > > > > Christophe I understand ; thanks for explaining . It sounds really depressive if really everyone basically reinvented and recoded the same ideas all the time. On the other hand you point out that you are at the top of just the same crowd heading for what you assume to be the wrong direction. I wouldn't call Tiger a Crafty clone though, would you? Or back to your original statement: >>>120-150 amateur Winboard chess engines, 90%-95% of them being essentially >>>partial Crafty clones (I mean using the same techniques, or only a subset of the >>>same techniques). From your post I conclude Crafty could be replaced by Tiger in this text, correct? Regards, pete
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.