Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 22:09:25 01/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2006 at 00:51:30, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 14, 2006 at 00:13:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>One note... >> >>If you look around, 90% of the people that stop participating in actual computer >>chess discussions are those that chose to go "commercial". Or those that chose >>to do something after lurking here for quite a while, then go off and become >>ultra-secretive. The other 10% either would like to go commercial, but don't, >>or they just "burn out." Burn-out is fairly common. I can only think of one >>person that is still active that was around when I started competing in CC >>events. Me. Why I didn't "burn out" I have no idea. And I haven't done so to >>date either... >> >>The ones of us still releasing source code, or even if we are not, we still >>choose to "hold nothing back" _still_ continue to discuss computer chess ideas. >>I've been quieter than usual, because I have been busier than usual here at UAB, >>and also because of the major changes being made in Crafty to get ready for the >>next WCCC. But eventually, everything I have been doing will become public, and >>that will continue so long as I am able to continue doing this stuff, hopefully >>for many years yet to go... >> >>Remember that it is just as reasonable to _start_ a thread on some CC topic as >>it is to wait for others to start it, and then jump in. In the past few years, >>many have chosen to "go commercial" and that ends their participation in >>technical discussions. >> >>That is sad, but it happens. Fortunately there are still a few around that will >>continue to discuss things, and continue to push themselves (and the silent >>lurkers) forward year by year. One simply has to decide whether to be an active >>participant or just a lurker... > >Sometimes, they also get rejuvenated. I think Bruce Moreland may be picking up >interest again. > >When Ed Schroder retired from computer chess, he gave detailed instructions on >how to write a good program on his web site. He was often helpful with advice >even when he was programming. > >I think in Christophe Theron's case, he discovered a beautiful woman and found >out that they can be a lot more fun than even chess (drat!) > >I also think that the academic endeavor is the best approach in the long haul. > >I think that going professional would probably also take all or most of the fun >out of chess programming. I don't put myself at any of their levels, but I did go away for a year, and, with Don Beal's, Brian Richardson's, and Dan Homan's help, modify my program so that it learns piece values from entirely randomized play starting with all pieces equal to a pawn and no other evaluation knowledge besides material. I am currently working on modifying it to do the same for non-material pieces and encountering surprising resistance in the code. Brian convinced me to come back here and take a look at the goings-on and I am it is all about Rybka and Fruit - two remarkable programs. I bought Rybka and I downloaded Fruit. I've played one game against Rybka and briefly looked at Fruit code enough that I know I still don't want to review another programmer's code (in any application area) for any reason. I miss some of the longer discussions on computer chess programming but sobeit. Threads on the subject seem to die faster now here, but perhaps that's just a misperception. 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.