Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 10:03:57 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2002 at 12:54:28, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 13, 2002 at 12:43:36, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>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 > >Yes but the point is that Ed did not know about the IID idea when he invented >it. > >Uri You're sure about that? I think he probably just tried it 10+ years ago then forgot about it :-) 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.