Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:52:13 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2002 at 12:30:49, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On September 13, 2002 at 11:57:50, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 13, 2002 at 11:25:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On September 13, 2002 at 11:15:32, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On September 13, 2002 at 11:06:57, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Again I must agree. Since all modern progs are founded on these free (?) >sources by defintion they are stronger. How could they be weaker? >>>> >>>>Reality, it seems, does not quite agree with you. >>>> >>>>But don't let that stop you. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>>Sorry. Then let me change the statement into: For the professionals the openly >>>published code of Crafty is understandable in its details. (yes/no) >> >>I believe that at least for part of them if not for all of them the answer is >>no. >> >>Uri > >Really, I don't know where the dificulty is for you, Uri. >In a public listing all theae questions are discussed in public. >Just go for it. There are no secrets. What is only forbidden that is the copying >of code. Of course pros must think about the ideas in Crafty! It's _their_ money >he'll lose if they don't. Ok, with a grain of salt. I know and there are discussion about it but If I decide to understand everything in crafty and ask questions about the source code this process can take a long time. I understand some ideas that are used in Crafty but I am not close to understand everything. I believe that I have ideas to do things better but it is better if I learn more about programming before trying to do them. > >But let's take the opportunity and push the debate a bit forward. > >As in science there are actual tendencies. And if not Einstein or Bob then >Heisenberg or Uri are the first to develop the new idea. In fact it's rather >seldom that some individual could find something completely out of reach (or we >would call it SF) for the time being. NB that certain ideas of you are only >"possible" to implement IF the necessary hardware is there or you've made the >necessary progress in other parts etc. In short, the belief that the top idea of >a time came out of the blue just by chance or was only possible to grow in XY, >this belief is pure magic. If you or me were on the right place, with the right >education, with the right team, with the right woman at our side (see Einstein!) >(see the new Shirov 2002 :)) things will happen quite easily. > >The example of Vincent proves one thing, at least to me. He has all it takes to >become a winner in CC but I think he has also something that will prevent it. In >short: he has difficulties to listen carefully what other people say. I agree about it. >But to be >on the top of any field you must digest all of the tradition and then, only >then, doing your own thing. Earlier, if you do it this way, you could only >succeed by chance. I do not think that the way to go is to understand first everything that is done by other people. I need to learn about ideas that were done by other people but I do not think that I need to understand the meaning of every variable in Crafty before writing my program and without it I cannot say that the openly published code of Crafty is understandable in its details for me. Actually, the hardware aspects are so dominant in CC, that >Vincent can not be blamed for his performance in Maastricht. > >Rolf Tueschen My opinion is that there can be a break through in computer chess. I believe that the top program has potential to be 200 elo better if people think about the right ideas. 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.