Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 13:20:13 12/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2005 at 05:07:19, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On December 20, 2005 at 16:02:53, enrico carrisco wrote: > >>On December 20, 2005 at 15:17:25, Alex Schmidt wrote: >> >>>Hello, >>> >>>Vasik Rajlich kindly agreed to give us an interview: >>> >>>http://www.uciengines.de/UCI-Engines/Rybka/vriv/vriv.html >>> >>>Thank you Vasik, >>>Alex >> >>Very interesting interview. As far as the question & answer below, I can say >>that HIARCS shouldn't be listed as benefiting from Fruit 2.1's open source code, >>however. Clearly, less developed engines and amateurs will benefit from such >>code more than long-term and highly developed projects. >> >>It's also been much of a mutual agreement (my own "basic" analysis of the code >>in agreement) that aside from Fabien's approach to history pruning, no >>"breakthrough" ideas appeared in Fruit 2.1's code and that its wonderful play >>and strength was largely due to how eloquently all its different functions were >>harmonized. >> >>Additionally, you cannot "transplant" an idea (style or approach) of one chess >>program (search, evaluation, etc.) to another program that has already >>incorporated a much different set of ideas. It would take more time and effort >>to have apples and oranges working together efficiently than it would be worth. >> >>Regards, >> >>-elc. >> >> > >For some reason we have trouble in computer chess talking about this. Can you >imagine Anand saying that he learns nothing from Kasparov and has no interest in >his ideas? > And that is one reason why Kasparov impresses me because he writes the multi-volume work on his great predecessors. That kind of grattitude and non-arrogance has been, traditionally, rare in the world of high-ego international politics and national pride-on-the-line chess. Stuart
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.