Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:29:46 12/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2001 at 11:37:38, Peter Berger wrote:
>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
If you look at the big picture, I would say yes.
Crafty and Tiger are very different, but in the scope of the current discussion
they are both in the same dead end.
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.