Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:35:41 12/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2001 at 09:08:53, José Carlos wrote:
>On December 20, 2001 at 22:40:16, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Creativity is also supported by knowledge. If you lack basic knowledge you can
>create basic ideas. If you have deep understanding you can create really new and
>specialized stuff.
> I don't think one has to be creative all the time. There are phases. First
>phase is study and uderstand (which involves trying to solve problems _before_
>reading the solution). Second phase is improve, write advanced stuff, try wierd
>ideas, see what happens. Then you have knowledge enough to specilize, to
>research in very new and advanced techniques, supported by the solid
>understanding you have about the basic techniques.
> I think most of us winboard-amateurs are in the first or second phase. Some
>will go farther, some not. It depends on talent and time invested.
>
>>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?
>
> It's definetly a reason to celebrate, specially for commercials. Many amateurs
>engines, with many fans each, means a lot of interest in computer chess. The
>more interest in computer chess, the more chances commercial programmers can
>sell their programs.
> If you ask "why do those weak engines have fans?", there are many reasons:
> - Authors and friends/relatives, obviuosly.
> - Amateur authors are helped by people. Those people who help the programmer
>"feel" like they have contributed to the thing, so they consider it partially
>own.
> - For some reason I fail to understand (maybe psicologysts know) people tend
>to assess human personalities to the programs. When you read posts about tests
>matches, you see things like "phalanx tried desperately to attack" or "crafty is
>in good shape" or "fritz didn't give a chance to tiger". And, the same way you
>like some people, then you end up liking some program.
> - People from Spain will probably be happy with Pepito's or Averno's success.
>Italians are happy with Leila or Delfi. In Argentina Gaviota has a lot of fans
>and the same for Amyan in Uruguay. Not all coutries have top programmers, but
>I'd be happy if I could run a Spanish winboard championsip, or form a Spain
>team.
> - ...
>
> José C.
I guess I'm starting to see the point now.
What you say makes sense, and it's all about fun, as I understand.
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.