Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 19:05:15 10/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 1999 at 17:45:51, Christophe Theron wrote: >On October 21, 1999 at 15:23:45, Wayne Lowrance wrote: > >>On October 21, 1999 at 13:21:00, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On October 21, 1999 at 10:33:16, Peter Pilarinos wrote: >>> >>>>My personal opinion is that it would be EXTREMELY difficult to make further >>>>progress based on the present Genius program structure. I remember Richard Lang >>>>saying this in one interview that I read about him some years back. His programs >>>>are very unique in their structure. It was this type of programming tequnique >>>>that allowed the Genius programs to be so poweful on relatively slow computers. >>>>Now that the computers are so much quicker, the advantages of this type of >>>>search structure are somwhat dim. I believe that if Mr. Lang wanted to make >>>>futher noticable progress, he would have to re-write his program from scratch, >>>>using different, more contemporary methods. He is obviously a very talented man, >>>>and I am sure he could do this if he wished. >>>> >>>>Pete P >>> >>>I'm sure you are going to think that the following is very arrogant, but I >>>really think what he said is BULLSHIT. >>> >>>Lang's program are not unique in their structure. He wants you to believe so, >>>but it's not true. He is using alpha-beta, hash tables, pruning techniques, >>>static piece square tables, dynamic part in the evaluation and so on. >>> >>>What Genius misses is some modern pruning techniques that work better at higher >>>depths. Because Genius is killed by search depth, which is ironic as he was >>>killing everybody by search depth several years ago. probably also relying less >>>on static evaluation made at the root would be needed. >>> >>>The truth is that he has probably lost the will to work on Genius. What he has >>>does not need to be rewritten. He should keep almost everything, because he has >>>powerful algorithms. He just has to add several modern techniques, which are BTW >>>publicly known. >>> >>>In this case however, Genius would become a program similar to many others, with >>>just a little bit of originality. >>> >>>But who am I to pretend he is wrong... :) >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>Your post is appreciated, Your language is not ! >>Wayne > >Oops... What did I say? > > > Christophe You used "f***" twice in one post... but not the one he replied to. Dave
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.