Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:59:11 01/14/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2006 at 23:06:35, Zappa wrote: >I stopped over to read CTF for a bit earlier today, and something hit me: I >actually found interesting posts to read, and that I hadn't really been that >interested in anything written at CCC for some time. So I started thinking >about this, and I started to realize that the composition of CCC has changed >quite a bit over the last year or so. > >Back when I joined (feels like ages ago, even though its only a few years) there >were basically 4 groups of people at CCC: the optimizers (headed by Gerd) >posting on better methods to compute LSB and hardware and such things, the chess >experts, who were primarily interested having the computer analyze their games >and posted a lot of test positions, the authors (headed by the always-arguing >Bob and Vincent) who talked about search methods and eval tricks, and the >testers, who ran matches and posted the results. Somehow over the past year the >composition of the forum has shifted dramatically towards the testers, and >lately I feel that a good 50% of the posts here have been "I ran a tournament >with some engines under Y conditions", "Great work X, you're a cool dude", "No, >X is an idiot, because he used conditions Y! What a tool!". > >I personally was never that interested in test results; I joined for the other >types of posts, and they have simply disappeared. Bob has posted about 10 times >in the past year. Ditto for Vincent. GCP only posts to correct idiocies. Gerd >barely posts any more. Fierz is gone. Fabien is gone. Bruce is gone. About >the only people left over from the halcyon days of yore are Gunther and Tord. >And two people do not a forum make. > >I am not sure why CCC has changed as it has. I have always resented the Deep >Blue team for insinuating that computer chess was solved in 1995, but has it >been solved in 2006? I haven't really heard of any new engines. When I look at >the participants list for CCT8, every single engine played there last year. I >know its still early, but are there simply no new engine authors? And if so, >why? Has it become too easy? Is everyone only interested in cloning Fruit now? > Or do people feel that CC is simply solved now? A laptop with Fritz can beat >GMs nowadays. I posted earlier that I felt that the big ideas of the 90s >(mobility, null move) had basically been worked to death and that computer chess >was in sore need of new ideas. Perhaps we just _don't need_ new ideas, and all >that is left is a gentle refinement of the old ones. I don't know. > >I know that about 10,000 people will say "but RYBKA!", so let me preemptively >answer them: Rybka's strength is tactical, not positional. Take a look at Marc >Lacrosse's post. I do not say this to derogate Rybka - I don't know what he is >doing in search, but it must be pretty amazing - but I have never viewed tactics >as the primary problem in computer chess. As computers get faster, the tactics >will take care of themselves naturally. I have 2 things to say here: 1)tactics will also be important in computer chess because it is always good to see deeper. Tactics is of course not the only important thing but it is one of the important things in computer chess. 2)Rybka's main strength relative to opponents is better positional understanding and you can see that it is not the best program in tactical test suites. For example Hiarcs is better than Rybka in tactical test suites. Uri
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.