Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:01:52 12/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2003 at 15:10:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. If I didn't know better, I would claim you are Bruce Moreland, posting under Dann's handle. It sounds _just_ like him. :) > >>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.