Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:29:34 02/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 1999 at 13:58:38, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 17, 1999 at 13:41:33, Will Singleton wrote: > >> >>On February 17, 1999 at 08:18:01, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >> >>>Bob, >>> >>>I read your report carefully. The story is over for me. I know where I am now, >>>and what I have been doing. About my doubts -- yes, I did have them but there >>>was that different style of play, my good faith and a rationally based >>>conviction that the author is a brillant person. For all I know the author IS a >>>brilliant person. However, I have enough evidence now to form my opinion about >>>those early versions of Voyager -- R=3, some eval changes (e. g. bishops getting >>>more bonus vs. knights than you assigned), plus some other Voyager specific >>>changes which I will not mention now as the author is still, I think, working on >>>the program (hopefully making a wholly new product). Bob, thanks for doing what >>>I thought you should surely do -- presenting evidence. From now on, the version >>>playing on ICC (a terrific blitz player otherwise) will be labelled as Voyager, >>>by Robert Hyatt, modified by G. Mueller. I do intend to run it more when I have >>>time, as I truly believe it to be one of the best blitzers on the Net. >>> >>>There are some other points that I have raised in the discussions with Dan Homan >>>and Jeremiah Pennery that I think are worth further elucidation. Perhaps later >>>at some point. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Djordje >> >> >>Looking at the results of testing posted on your website, it appears that Mr. >>Mueller has done something pretty remarkable; that is, he has found significant >>grounds for improvement in a program that has been under development for years >>by RH. What, exactly, are the changes that have improved it? For a program >>that beats Crafty on equal hardware in *every* single match (as you state), I >>think people would be extremely interested to know how he did it. This could be >>very exciting. >> >>Would it be possible to post or otherwise publish the parts of the code that >>were changed, so that we may share in this great achievement? >> >>Re your new labeling of MagusX, etc, I don't know if Bob wrote a program called >>Voyager. I thought it was Crafty. Other people have modified versions running, >>and to my knowledge they retain the Crafty name. Maybe I'm wrong about that, >>don't know. > >I don't think so that voyager is improved compared to crafty. > >It uses R=3 and some alpha beta dependant extensions, and a good book. > >That is: at blitz it seems a little faster because of this R=3, however >i'm sure that at a slow match it will not perform better than crafty. >It shows *exactly* the same scores and mainlines after say 12 or 13 ply >search. > >I doubt whether some alfabeta dependant extensions which solve some >problems quicker will *ever* make a program play better in a 3 mins a move >match at reasonable hardware. > >>Will Not having seen "anything" about this program, I can only guess how it can win every match. It is pretty easy to take crafty, play it against itself over and over, and look to see what is happening. And to modify one version to win a significant number of games. Whether this makes it 'better' is a big question... I don't think so. But it can certainly make the modified version win most if not all 'matches'. I really doubt there is a 'magic bullet' someone could use to make the program instantly 100 points better. Particularly if that someone isn't a good enough programmer to change the source significantly enough to at least 'hide' what is going on.
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.