Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:31:10 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2002 at 11:17:20, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 13, 2002 at 11:16:07, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 13, 2002 at 11:06:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On September 13, 2002 at 10:56:10, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On September 13, 2002 at 10:38:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>>I disagree. >>>>>>Most of the population of chess programs is clearly weaker than the top >>>>>>programs. >>>>>> >>>>>>Gnuchess is losing against crafty even if you give gnuchess hardware that is 10 >>>>>>times faster if the time control is slow enough and gnuchess is not a weak >>>>>>program but at the level of the average amateur. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>I agree. This was chapter one though. Seems fair enough that GNU which has no >>>>>clue about endgames, tablebases, not even GM books, and then being amateur, is >>>>>weaker than Crafty. Was GNU ever tuned on Crafty? I mean if I would take GNU as >>>>>a pro I would make at least 8th place in SSDF out of it. But actually we are >>>>>comparing apples and beans. GNU is not of "this" world now. BTW I played >>>>>SIBIRIAN, for that nice prog I promissed you the same! Implement all the modern >>>>>stuff and it will play billy bully with FRITZ, I suppose. Not even needing >>>>>tablebases. Cough. >>>>> >>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>> >>>>I have to disagree again. >>>>I do not know how the book of gnuchess was build but it is not so bad and it has >>>>a lot of variety. >>>> >>>>I do not think that gnu lose games because of book. >>>>Tablebases are also not very important. >>>> >>>>Gnu is going to lose also against list inspite of the fact that list has no book >>>>and not because of tablebases advantage. >>>> >>>>Gnu need better search rules and better evaluation in order to be in the same >>>>level of the top programs. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Again I must agree. Since all modern progs are founded on these free (?) sources >>>by defintion they are stronger. How could they be weaker? That is the same with >>>the pro's which were all founded in parts on CRAFTY. How could CRAFTY still be >>>stronger? >> >>The pro are not based on crafty and crafty clearly has knowledge that most pro >>do not have. To specify this I have to change it into "all new and working ideas" in Crafty have been noted by the pros and they will surely have found a way to implement the idea into their own prog. I didn't mean that thy simply copied the code, which could be understood because I wrote "free sources". What I meant was ideas that could be examined because they were published in public. Please correct me if that is impossible for reasons unknown to me. Also I din't mean that the pros were just waiting for news spreading out of Bob's working kitchen. Of course they make their own inventions too. At least I think so. Rolf Tueschen >> >>It is not easy to understand crafty and to implement the knowledge that in it >>about hash tables and about other things. >> >>Programmers usually prefer to develop their program and not to try to understand >>everything crafty. > >should be everything in crafty. > >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.