Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:33:06 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2002 at 12:52:13, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Thanks for the debate so far. Let me give you a hint. Because we are not in opposition about the main topic. I said you must have digested all the leading ideas and then you can develop your "own" new style or way. You say that it's also possible to have good ideas without doing it this way. You are right. But let's see. I've finished the lecture of the John Nash biography. Something that is beautifully reported is the tendence of Nash, that he neglected all modern stuff if you want. He was not well informed about the actual trends or modes. He suddenly had the idea in a specific field and then he had to run around and bugged his senior collegues for the details if that idea would be a real novelty in the world of maths. Most of the time they thought he had so strange and even nonsense ideas that it took weeks for him to convince them. But then they were almost shocked by the depth of his original ideas. It became standing judgement that he, Nash, had the talents to do it in a way nobody before had ever done or beter tried it. So far the bio. But if you now would assume that Nash was completely out of the contemporary maths then you did make a gross mistake. What he did is the same a composer does. He would never listen to the music in the radio too much. Or listen to the music of his fellow composers. But that doesn't mean that they are not well informed about the contemporary trends. And don't forget my examples come from a field where you must have a deep education. I'm not able to judge how deeply you must be involved in CC to be able to write your first chess program. It seemed to me that this were possible if you were a programer as such. Then you simply add a few features and bingo. See the example of QUARK. (Information of the author in CSS that he had only weeks or few months to participate in Paderborn. He had older experiences.) To sum up. You digest a lot. But you are also doing your own thing. If not you can't become a good chess programmer. Only copying is not enough. But having a sense for actual trends is also a big help. So, it's a mixture of both aspects. The important quality you must have is the ability to create code for the ideas you have and then the quality of the judgement what could be implemented and how. Am I right so far? Rolf Tueschen
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.