Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:32:59 04/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2003 at 09:17:24, Jonas Bylund wrote: >>>The only thing stopping me from buying Diep is the lack of WB/UCI support! >> >>my interface will load UCI engines. Winboard perhaps too though it is a too >>primitive standard to load it stable. > >But do you sell Diep as a UCI engine, which for example could run under Fritz >interface? if it does i would like to place an order :) i don't need another GUI >where i would have to use a null modem cable to play the GUI engine against CB >engines. If i may ask, do you own fritz? No i will not sell diep as UCI engine as far as plans are now. that is too much user support to do. that is only reason i will not sell it as uci engine of course. too many users going to complain they cannot get it to work. that's why i stopped the winboard version of diep too. selling winboard/uci engines is a selftorturing thing IMHO. >>It has very limited functionality and has major bugs. UCI lacks a few things too >>but is a very reliable protocol compared to winboard. >> >>>>How can you justify that it has not been an almost complete waste of time? >>> >>>How can you justify that compchess in general is not a complete waste of time, >>>well i am sure that what ignited a spark in you to write a chess program as >>>great as CT is not far away from the spark igniting Diep as we know it today, >>>the things we do as humans to create, is a fine line between waste of time and >>>fulfillment. >> >>Whatever we say i find CT15 a very good engine, let's be clear here. >> >>I am rooting for DIEP too at the worldchamps 2003. >> >>DIEP at 90 0 level at a dual K7 sometimes doesn't manage to finish a 10 ply >>search. In positions where eval sucks simply (that is especially opening) that >>matters a lot. In far middlegame only sometimes and in endgame IMHO nowadays >>engines search deep enough. >> >>But for a program with a lot of knowledge a deeper search will not hurt, that is >>my argument to search deeper. > >For VERY long analysis would you say that Diep is one of the best? define best. what i claimed at the time was searching with more knowledge resulting in better analysis. but some idiots then said that was the same as winning games. But winning games is something else. suppose you are corr player and you analyze with 2 engines. 1 engine sucks in endgame, but knows the diff between bishop and knight. other engine knows that not but doesn't make that single blunder in endgame which loses game. which engine you prefer? my claim has been rewritten by others. the claim still is true btw. note that diep started scoring a lot better in tournaments when i improved endgame (still needs improvement i guess) and especially when book has improved a lot it is a force to reckon with! >>Another argument is the Brutus thing. It completely kills engines that it >>outsearches; when you have more knowledge AND outsearch in a non-dubious way >>your opponents (forward pruning other than nullmove that makes the length of >>positional lines seen shorter is very dubious thing) then a well tuned engine >>will completely kill the rest. > >We will have to see about that, personally i am very excited by this "new" >approach. > >>I am sure not many will be happy to play DIEP in world champs ;) >> >>With exception of the game against brutus, diep could not complain about its >>play in general in world champs 2002 against the world top. It just lacked a few >>small things which a well tuned 500 processor will not have. > >Compared to your last attempt to run Diep on this monster, do you feel it will >run smooth this time? > >If Diep does not run as a UCI/WB engine under other GUI's, then would you >consider that as a possibility in the future? > >Regards >Jonas
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.