Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 09:43:36 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2002 at 11:54:04, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Ed's IID is different than traditional IID, though. Dave
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.