Author: martin fierz
Date: 00:24:13 09/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2002 at 02:12:04, Ingo Althofer wrote: >Helloa Martin, > >thanks for your open reply, and sorry when you now feel like in a bashing sack. >That was not my intention. > > >On September 09, 2002 at 18:31:32, martin fierz wrote: >>you have to take the report as what it is: a very personal account of my >>experience in las vegas. it is not a scientific paper, more a casual write-down >>of my impressions during and right after the tournament. personally, i rather >>read honest accounts of what's going on in people's brains than reading some >>kind of censored version after the fact, and that's why i wrote it this way. > >No problem with this - I like to do it just the same way (and from Jonathan >Schaeffer's book you know that he, too). Your report is really nice, and I >enjoyed it a lot. > > >I don't want to react on all the thoughtful follow-ups, but let me repeat my >main philosophy: To have done a thing first is worth more than to repeat it in >improved or refined ways. hi ingo, i think the misunderstanding is that when i say "nemesis' title is worth more than chinook's" i mean that nemesis plays checkers better, not that nemesis achieved more than chinook did. e.g. i generated the 8-piece db myself, it is smaller than the chinook db, the access code is faster, and unlike the chinook db, it was correct on the first attempt. i know that their db building achievement is *much* bigger - without reading their paper, i could never have done it at all. but this does not change the fact that my db is better. and about your main philosophy, most of the times i would agree. but sometimes, i do not agree. for example, i could argue that building the 8-piece db is not really an achievement, because the only real achievement was to invent retrograde analysis to compute such databases. all the rest was just using this technique. or, if somebody gave me access to a blazingly fast computer with a huge amount of ram, i could build the 10-piece checkers db and maybe beat schaeffer to it. would that be an achievement? i don't think so! awari has just been solved by somebody who got incredible hardware to do it. you know, it's good of course - but anybody who knows how to compute endgame databases could have done that with that hardware. aloha martin
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.