Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:49:31 11/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2003 at 10:32:18, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 19, 2003 at 10:09:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 19, 2003 at 08:41:01, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >> >>>I as well would much prefer the option 2 myself , but : >>> >>>> Some commercal interests have made a good chunk of money (not >>>>bad in itself) by taking advantage of open research (papers, test data, game >>>>collections, etc.) but have done little or nothing in return. On the other >>>>hand, there are those researchers who have made little, if any money from their >>>>work, yet who continue to advance the field with ideas, data, and mentoring. >>>> >>>>I remain wholly unimpressed with one shot publicity stunts that do next to >>>>nothing to help with our Art. >>> >>>I disagree again. Commercial programmers have written by far the superior >>>computer chess programs. If that is no contribution, then what ? >> >>How will that help the _next_ generation of computer chess authors? >> >>Answer: It won't. > >I do not agree with that answer. > >Even programs without open source give information that it is possible to learn >from it. So you could look at the output of a program using null-move, and figure out that it uses null-move, and how null-move works? I don't think so. Because I couldn't either. I might get ideas about scoring. Or I might even get ideas about search extensions. But the opposite is very difficult, to find out those things that a program doesn't do. Or which the author tried, found them no good, and moved on. If a subject like micro-electronics had to be re-discovered like that every 30 years as the old guys retired, we'd never get anywhere. > >They give evaluation and main line so you can learn something about their >evaluation. No disagreement there. > >You can see at what depth they solve positions so you can guess something about >their extensions. > No disagreement there. >It is not a case when they give nothing. > Extensions and evaluation are well-known. They have been publicized for 40 years now. But what about _pruning_? Other than what has been written by non-commerical authors? IE Beal's paper on null-move pruning started that topic. Hsu's pointers about singular extensions started that topic. Looking at their output would not explain _how_ they were doing SE, or even that they _were_ doing it. Those details are not easy to glean by inspecting program output. As far as the "giving nothing" goes, I might be willing to change that to "give very little" instead. >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.