Author: Tony Werten
Date: 14:45:27 12/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2001 at 10:54:03, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On December 21, 2001 at 06:24:04, Tony Werten wrote: > >>On December 20, 2001 at 23:31:52, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >> >>>On December 20, 2001 at 21:15:42, Dann Corbit 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. >>>> >>>>He's wrong, and I am very sure of that. The only crafty clones that I know of >>>>are Voyager, Bionic, and La Petite. Most bitboard programs don't resemble >>>>crafty very much. Beowulf is nothing like crafty, and neither are Pepito or >>>>Amy. The only thing that is the same is the bitboard representation. >>> >>>Neither is Gaviota (a weak one), unless for some remote coincidence there is a >>>resemblance since I have never studied Crafty sources or any other, because I am >>>lazy. Yes, I pay attention to the comments and ideas of the people in this >>>forum, but I have mine too. Over the time I found that I handle nullmove, >>>recording the PVs and adjusting mate scores different. Ideas are also >>>convergent, for instance the way I handle null move is conceptually similar to >>>the way YACE does it (to avoid zugswang problems). The implementation is >>>different. Some extensions and pruning ideas that I am doing occurred to me. >>>Maybe they are not good, but they are Gaviota's. Maybe they have been tried >>>before? Most probably... >> >>It depends on what you call a clone. If you are looking at somebodys code, put >>it aside and then code the same idea in your program then IMO you're cloning. > >Can you call something a clone when the programmer did not even even look? >Do you consider "cloning" implemented and idea read in a paper? Then everything >is a clone, nobody reinvented alpha-beta. Actually I reinvented alpha but wasn't smart enough to consider beta. Anyway, reading a paper and then implement is IMO something completely different. > >>If an unexperienced programmer writes an engine in a couple of months, with a >>stable evaluation, using bitboards and thinks about going multiprocessor in the >>near future then I'm quite sure he didn't even bother to put the code aside. > >That is not Gaviota's case, since the first line of code was written ~5 years >ago. As there are many more wich I was not talking about. Tony > >Regards, >Miguel > > >> >>If he then asks "how does quiescence work" then I'm very sure. >> >>Tony
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.