Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 19:42:26 08/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
I pretty much disagree with everything you said. Its perfectly possible to be super strong without any big secrets. Attention to detail, improving the little things, and a whole lot of blood sweat and tears will get you a very long way. Oh, and did I mention testing? Good testing helps heaps. 5% inspiration, 95% perspiration :-) Of course, some commercial engines have big secrets, but I don't think they are necessary to be super strong. On August 15, 2002 at 21:43:14, Russell Reagan wrote: >On August 15, 2002 at 18:04:56, Will Singleton wrote: > >>With regard to one of Hyatt's statements, "The commercial >>programs are using some form of forward pruning that they won't discuss", I have >>seen hints of such in dicussions here. > >There have been vague hints, yes. But nothing meaningful. When I think of their >hints, it makes me think of a rocket scientist who discovered a way to travel to >Mars and back in a matter of minutes. When asked about how he did it, he >replied, "I made a space ship that travels at the speed of light." Gee, thanks. >That's not really helpful now is it? The commercial author's will give "hints" >like, "I use forward pruning". Neither the rocket scientist or the commercial >engine author's tell you how they accomplished what they did, only that they did >it, which isn't very helpful. Certainly not anywhere close to as helpful as >anything Bob has done. Then again, the fact that they are "commercial" means >they are in it for the money, not for educational purposes. It would be nice to >see them give something back though, since they surely learned something along >the way from a program like Crafty, or the other amateur engines out there. > >>But is it logical to assume that only >>the commercials are using secret techniques? > >Not *only* the commercials, but _only_ the commercials are using "big" secrets. >See below... > >>There are several strong amateur >>programs whose authors also do not discuss their techniques. > >While this is true that there are amateur engines that keep secrets, I seriously >doubt that any of those secrets are "big" secrets. I think it is 100% safe to >conclude that the commercial engines are keeping some "big" secrets. Probably >what Bob said, forward pruning methods. Here is my reasoning. > >1. Crafty makes use of techniques and methods that are well known, and in >addition to that, Bob has always been willing to explain how any part of Crafty >works. > >2. No amateur engine has drastically surpassed Crafty. Yes, some may be slightly >better, but they are still much closer to Crafty's playing level than they are >to the level of Fritz and friends. > >This leads me to believe that no amateur is using any "big" secret, or else they >wouldn't be on par with Crafty, which has no secrets. I think there might be >small secrets within some of the strong amateur engines, which would account for >the slight increase in playing ability compared to Crafty, at times. > >I think the fact that there are only one or two amateur engines that can even >score greater than 40% against the commercial engines some of the time says >something. I think it's a little niave to believe that the commercial engines >aren't keeping any secrets. > >>The commercials don't have a corner on secrecy, nor should they. > >They have a corner on the cutting edge secrets. IE the "big" secrets. > >Russell
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.