Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 00:55:22 12/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2005 at 03:47:08, Ryan B. wrote: >On December 15, 2005 at 03:00:42, Stephen A. Boak wrote: > >>On December 15, 2005 at 02:35:39, Chrilly Donninger wrote: >> >>[..] >> >>>One example for the practical consequences can be found in Rybka: >>>Probably a lot >>>of users think, when they choose the personality "very positionally", that the >>>programm has - in contrast to "very tactically" - more chess knowledge, that >>>there is a trade-off between knowledge and search-speed. >> >>>In fact the 4 personality settings change 2 numbers. These numbers influence >>>only the pruning/extension mechanism of the search tree. The "very tactical" >>>settings prune less than the "very positional" one. I have not tested the >>>differences in the playing styles, but from the theoretical considerations it >>>should indeed influence the style. The terms "tactical, positional" are just >>>labels. One has to give it a name. >> >>>The same is probably done in all other programms. E.g. an old Nimzo-version of >>>mine had already such a setting. The personalities were called aggressive, >>>solid.. These settings changed the shape of the tree in a similar way. Maybe >>>Rybka is a Nimzo clone :-) >>> >>>Chrilly >> >>Dr. Donninger, >> >>I understand pedagogical style and humor in education, but I request some >>clarification feedback, please. >> >>Recently (previously) you wrote: >> >>"There is the famous quote from Newton: I am dwarf standing on the shoulder on >>giants. Its not possible and even not desirable to invent the whole wheel for >>yourself. Making a somewhat rounder/better wheel is sufficient. In this broad >>sense every programm would be a clone." >> >>Are you (in later posting, at top) claiming to be the dwarf or the giant? >>Are you (in later posting, at top) using the word 'clone' in this broad sense? >> >>You also recently (previously) wrote: >> >>"Rybka has Bitboards. But thats mentioned in the Readme File. So I am telling >>here no big news. >> >>But I really want to avoid to say some real internals. >> >>First of all I have not looked on all of Rybkas details. Would be much too much >>work and also boring. >> >>I wanted just to have the big picture. And even if I would know something >>important, I could/would not post it. >> >>This would be against the rules. >> >>Chrilly" >> >>Referring to your later posting (at top), and your recent (previous) posting, >>quoted above: >> >>1) Have you changed your mind about disassembling another programmer's work and >>speaking about "real internals"? >> >>2) Are you not speaking, in your opinion, about "something important"? >> >>3) Are you breaking "the rules"? >> >>Thanks in advance, >>--Steve > > >Finding variables modified by a UCI option is simple in assembly so I think most >people would not be offended if they are not already offended that he >disassembled the engine in the first place. Is he breaking a rule by >disassembling Rybka? Probably but oh well I guess. If it's ok in his mind no >one can stop him. > >Ryan If one has the tools and knowledge to disassemble privately and learn from another program, that is one thing. I, however, wasn't addressing that particular aspect. To release the results in public of private disassembly of another's program, that is quite another aspect, IMO. [I'm not attempting to say what is a release & what is not; nor what is sufficiently detailed to be a release vs. what is not.] --Steve
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.