Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:54:04 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2002 at 11:31:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 I know that at least part of the pro did not do it. I know that Ed only in the last Rebel reinvented the internal iterative deepening. He was surprised to find that this idea is used in crafty. He looked at the comments in the crafty code some years ago but he missed the comment about internal iterative deepening. He did not look at the crafty source code later based on my knowledge. I know that other programmers also did not learn the ideas in the crafty code. I think that the main problem is to understand it. It is not easy to understand the crafty code and programmers prefer to use their time to try their ideas instead of trying to understand the crafty code. 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.