Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 14:40:07 10/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 1999 at 16:51:56, Alexander Kure wrote: >On October 28, 1999 at 15:43:02, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On October 28, 1999 at 14:50:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 28, 1999 at 14:26:57, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>On October 27, 1999 at 15:22:29, Alexander Kure wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 27, 1999 at 11:55:49, Amir Ban wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>You noplayed the two highest rated blitz computers around (Ban & Varguz). The >>>>>>others are either hundreds of points lower or don't come any longer. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>As I run Varguz on my second compi I think I can add something: >>>>> >>>>>I do not care if Crafty is noplaying Varguz. I do not have a noplaylist, cause I >>>>>simply do not care. I think Crafty is an amateur program that could learn a lot >>>>>from playing the commercials. >>>>>Let me put it this way: Compared to the strong commercial programs like Junior, >>>>>Fritz, Hiarcs and Nimzo Crafty is much weaker and needs some improvements to be >>>>>a match for the above programs on equal hardware. >>>> >>>>Be fair. You are forgetting that the commercial programs do not publish their >>>>source code. Sure they are stronger, they have the crafty source code to look >>>>at. Due to this, one might say that crafty defines the dividing line between the >>>>top programs and the also rans. If your program is not at least as good as >>>>crafty, then it is not a top program. No matter how much Hyatt improves his >>>>program, he will never be able to best the top programs (for very long anyway), >>>>since he gives away all his ideas. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Greetings Alex >>> >>> >>>And we _know_ that nobody uses those outdated ideas in Crafty, right? :) >>> >>>IE book learning, some of the evaluation terms... etc. I have been really >>>hesitant to release the new pawn majority code because no one else is doing >>>this that I can recognize, at least not doing it effectively. The minute 17.0 >>>hits the street, others will be doing it soon. >>> >>>Good or bad? >> >>Not just good, great! Crafty has doubtless elevated the playing strength of all >>chess programs (both commercial and non-) by making the source public. Alex got >>it backwards: The important point is not so much that crafty _could_ learn a lot >>from the commercial programs, but rather the commercial programs _do_ learn a >>lot from crafty. >> >>> >>>A one-way flow of information? >> >>Yes. If they want to compete with crafty on an equal footing, they should >>publish their source. >> >>> >>>Is it really worth it? > >I cannot confirm that commercial programs _do_ learn a lot from crafty's source >code. What can be learnt from it? How Passed Pawns are being handled. Not as >effective as Nimzo does. Well what about Crafty's King safty - Nimzo is very bad >on this - surely I can copy from Crafty's - sounds ridiculous to me. >Crafty's opening book? Nice compilation of standard games but what about anlysis >that has never been played? Think my book does the better job. >Just to think there is a source code available for free and all people - >including the proffesional chess programmers - jump on it like thirsty people in >the desert - hm. >I also cannot confirm that there is what you call a one-way flow of information. >Ever been to a computer chess event? Both professional and amateur programmers >exchange a lot of ideas there. Can you image all the e-mail contact between >them? Maybe they are talking a little bit more than about the wheather? >There are many different channels of information exchange which you may not be >aware of. So asuming you never heard of anything does not imply that is does not >exist. Ever asked Chrilly Donninger about how he has implemented Null Move? Ask >him and he will tell you! > >Just to put things right. I think what Bob does is wonderful for the computer >chess community. Many amateurs profit from what he has done and will profit from >what he will be doing in the future. I personally appreciate this! Not because I >will profit personally (I am not interested in that) but because with this he >keeps many people (amateurs) in the run for learning and improving their >program. > >Thx >Alex To hear you tell it, one would conclude Bob Hyatt never got a good idea worth copying. The programmers of the commercial programs are not stupid. Why reinvent the wheel, when you can look at the crafty source code?
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.