Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:47:33 09/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2002 at 13:33:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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? You are right that the important thing is to create code for the ideas that I have. I already wrote a chess program but most of my original ideas are not used there and I am going to learn more about programming before I continue. 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.