Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:10:25 12/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2003 at 10:20:42, Rick Rice wrote: >I feel that people really don't need anything more than TSCP to get started. >After that, they should do their own theoretical research, to take their program >to a higher level. Crafty hasn't really helped much, than promote plagiarism. >Prof. Hyatt should do the chess programming community a favor by removing the >source code from his web site. Instead, some articles by him about chess >programming theory should suffice. This way, people will not be doing a >wholesale cut-n-paste. That is like trying to unexplode a handgrenade that has already gone off. >Just my 2 cents worth. I could be wrong. What do you all think?? Imagine someone who said: "I think a soap box racer design is all you need to design a formula one race car." How will you feel about that statement? I think to write a beginner program based on mailbox data structures TSCP is all that you need to understand the inner workings of a functional and well designed model. TSCP is easy to understand and thoroughly debugged. I think to understand complex systems takes a complex model. You can get everything in crafty from reading papers about the techniques. But you will have to work a lot harder. A scientist splits the atom. He writes a paper about it. It's not his fault that other people build atom bombs with the equations instead of producing power or cancer therapy. There have been a few attempts to pass of crafty clones as original work. None of them have succeeded. I don't think List is a crafty clone (BTW).
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.