Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: 3 interviews about engine protocols with T. Mann, R. Hyatt and M. Blume

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 04:09:57 08/16/02

Go up one level in this thread


On August 15, 2002 at 23:00:36, Will Singleton wrote:

>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
>
>You make some good points, and I have no first-hand knowledge to refute them.
>So I can only guess, and my guess is that there are no "big" secrets that the
>commercials are using.  They are just better at every aspect of what goes into
>making programs play well.  Nevertheless, I also believe that both commercial
>and amateur authors are using some unknown techniques.
>
>Let's assume that I discovered some magic bullet pruning method, and it shrank
>my tree in half.  Sure, it would play better, but the opening book would still
>suck, the crappy eval would still be there, and the code would still be riddled
>with all kinds of bugs.  In short, it would still lose to the commercials.

I totally agree and I believe that movei is using a good idea that is not
used by the commercial programs but the problem is that it does not use a lot of
ideas that the top amateurs use.

I have also a lot of ideas that the top programs do not use but these ideas
are not implemented today.

I think that the problem(at least for me) is not to think about new good ideas
but to implement them correctly.

Another problem is that I also do not devote a lot of time to my program and
I prefer to watch games of it or to go to discussions.

Uri



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.