Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 10:22:41 06/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2004 at 12:30:50, Sune Fischer wrote: >On June 02, 2004 at 11:49:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>Don't complain about it saying that's not how it meant to be played. >>>If you won't acknowledge that the user is boss at his end then don't release the >>>engine to him. >> >>That's a completely nonsensical approach to anything. I designed Crafty with >>one goal in mind, playing chess. Crafty is a "package". Its book. Its >>learning. Its search. Its evaluation. Its pondering. Breaking any of those >>makes little sense since it becomes "not crafty" at that instant. > >Ok that is your privilege, but take Mr. Smith here he is a very strong player >and in the need for good engine to help him analyse his games. > >Mr. Smith has never heard of the computer chess club and couldn't care less >about computer games. All Mr. Smith needs is an engine that will assist him in >his analysis. > >As it happens Mr. Smith asks me for advice, now, should I tell him that Crafty >can't do analysis because Crafty is a "chess playing system" and he _must_ do >analysis with ponder ON (whatever in the world that means) and he must enable >learning before beginning analysis (whatever effect that would have?)? > >I guess I have to recommend some other engine to him, I don't want him to misuse >Crafty for something it wasn't intended to do of course! > > >>>There are problems with determanistic behavior of the engines. >> >>And there are problems with non-deterministic behavior of books. > >Which is why I do nunn based tests, but that's a different story for some other >time. > >> >>> >>>>Why not play with a >>>>common (bad) book? >>> >>>Done often. >> >> >>And just as worthless of course, > >Not "just" as worthless, it's a little less worthless. A step in the right >direction if you will. > >>>> But certainly don't play with a book hand-tuned to program A >>>>and program B might well do poorly with it. >>> >>>Why not, it might help you locate weaknesses. >> >> >>A person playing a basement tournament is not trying to fix weaknesses. That is >>where this thread started. Not on author testing, which is a different thing >>entirely... > >I have found many bugs due to a lot of helpful tournament holders, so that's >just outright false. > >>If turning off learning gets it kicked out, that's fine by me. I didn't write >>it to participate in oddball-configured basement events. I wrote it as a >>stand-alone system to play chess. > >What should Mr. Smith do about that? He can read the instructions like everyone else and use the "analyze" command. > >-S.
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.