Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:35:13 02/09/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2006 at 20:12:39, Steve Maughan wrote: >Will, > >I do think Fruit had an impact but I think you are over emphasizing it. In my >view the key events for amateur chess are the following (all dates from memory): GnuChess was the first one that I spent much time with. I did not understand a lick of it when I first started, but was fascinated by a chess program with source that I could compile and trace. I fooled around with GnuChess for a few months before I even discovered Winboard (using a standard chess set). SCP and SANKIT were some of my other early toys. >1996 / 1997: >Crafty - everyone saw the inner workings of a decent chess program. Null move >was there for all to see (yes I know about Chrilly's 1993 paper but this was one >of the first working examples) and null move became a standard part of virtually >every amateur chess program > >1999: >TSCP - showed the world that a chess program didn't need to be that complex to >play chess. This game amateurs a lot of confidence to start and in some cases a >starting point > >2000 - 2003: >Thanks to Christophe (Gambit Tiger) much more attention is paid to king safety >and selective search ideas. > >2001: >UCI protocol. The old school hated it but essentially it makes writing a chess >program easier. > >2002: >Ed shows some of the inner workings of Rebel. (IMO this has had as much, if not >more, of an impact on amateur chess as Fruit). For the first time everyone can >see how a veteran of 20 years has tuned a classic piece of software. We see >Rebel's innovative square control routine and the reduction that Rebel uses. > >2003 - 2005: >I'd call this the post Crafty period, where Hyatt is not the main source of new >ideas for amateurs. Many amateurs (Tord Rhomstad, Sergei Markov [even >Vincent!!] come to mind) start to share some interesting ideas. Notable, >history based reduction, Botvinick-Markov extensions and exotic move ordering >heuristics. IMO this sparked many new ways to think about the search. > >2004 - 2005: >Fruit bounds onto the scene. For me the big learning was that clean and simple >can still be strong - bugs can dramatically reduce playing strength. It's >obvious but Fruit demonstrated it. I'd also say that Fruit marked the end of >the 'bitboards are the future' movement. > >End of 2005: >Rybka - (bitboards are still alive!!) I think the main contribution of Rybka so >far is to re-awaken an interest in complex / accurate evaluations. Fruit et al >had made us think that a simple evaluation, if coupled with a good search can >play string chess - Rybka pull us back in the other direction. > >So I tend to side with Tord and say that it was more than just Fruit that has >caused the big increase in amateur strength. You may, or may not, agree. Some chess engines are not memorable for their strength or innovations but just being interesting. Gullydeckel is my other favorite chess engine name. How can you not love a chess engine named "Manhole cover"? Boris actually had me convinced it was his brother's name for a while. I bet he got a real chuckle out of that. ;-) MSCP is easier to understand (for me) than even TSCP. After studying GnuChess and Crafty for some time, I had a very fuzzy notion of the inner workings of a chess engine. MSCP was a real minimal sample. I have seen some that are even simpler since. I can say truthfully that I have greatly enjoyed every chess engine with source code that I ever investigated (though I admit to being a little annoyed at Tikov when I first started fooling around with it). I like the chess programs that are binary only also. Not just the free ones, but also the professional ones. For me, chess engines are such a wonderful hobby that I can hardly contain my joy about it.
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.