Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 15:55:03 10/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Robert Hyatt on October 29, 1999 at 16:59:20: >>The first program who had null-move (in the it is used now!) was the one >>of Don Beal during the WCC Cologne 1986, I remember it very well. And that >>moment Don had null-move only in Q-search. After Cologne his article >>"Selective Search without tears" came. >> >>Frans Morsch immediately fell in love with null-move after Cologne 1986 >>because of this talks with Don. In that time Frans and I almost daily phoned >>each other to discuss computer chess programming and exchanged many ideas. I >>decided not to use null-move, Frans did, you can see the result in Fritz. >> >>Then after some years the Donninger null-move article came in the ICCA, I >>forgot about the year, maybe someone can have a look, and the ball got >>rolling. I clearly remember the heated discussions in RGCC in 1995. From >>that moment on null-move (using it as selective search) became kind of >>standard in chess programs. >> >>Frans Morsch and Chrilly Donninger gave you null-move in the way it is used >>now in chess programs. There is no single doubt on that. > >There is a _lot_ of doubt. I was using null move _before_ there was a program >known as "fritz". I used it right after Beal's article. I wasn't sure about >the year, you stated 1986, which could be right, since I don't have it handy. >Campbell wrote a very good paper well before donninger, somewhere in the late >1980 era although I will have to look it up when I can return to the office). I have read "Computer Chess and Cognition" (not sure if that is the right cq complete title) but there was an article of you describing null-move, is that right? But what you described was the OLD (original) way of using null-move which was limited to ply-1 situations as it is a relative safe thing to do. By head I remember you claimed a speed gain of 25%. But in no way I saw a description of null-move as it is used today. That definitely came after the Donninger article in the ICCA journal. >So I certainly don't understand your last statement above. Also, at the time, >was Donninger a commercial author? Or was he an amateur like the rest of us? Alexander Kure offered you to ask Chrilly and what did you reply? I think you should do it and maybe your view on commercials might change. >Besides null-move, which was a non-commercial invention, here are some things >you _do_ use in Rebel, that came from 'amateurs': >1. hash table. first written up by Richard Greenblatt in roughly 1967. >Later defined more clearly in papers I (and others) wrote, but we always pointed to >Greenblatt as the inventor. > >2. iterative deepening. Chess 4.0 1974. Got it from another commercial :) >3. killer moves. Chess 4.0 Found out by myself. >4. History moves. Schaeffer (you may not use this, I don't know). Don't use it. >5. 'panic time on fail low' first written up by yours truly in an early JICCA >volume. Found out by myself. >6. Book learning. Used by more than one commercial program, then an approach >defined and written up by yours truly again. No commercial programmer would >even _think_ about explaining how they were 'learning'. And I mean _none_. I did once here on CCC, guessed you missed it. My own code BTW. >7. board representations. I copied 0x88 from Coko written in 1970. An >amateur program written by Ed Kozdrowicki and Dennis Cooper. Many use it >today. I have my own, nothing special BTW. >8. Bitmaps (you may use these in places, I don't know). They are generally >credited to Slate/Atkin, and/or Donskoy/et. al (Kaissa). I don't use them. >9. Singular extensions (I don't know what you do, but genius, wchess, and >others have/do use these) came from deep thought developers Hsu and Campbell. Don't use it. You forgot about the most important one of all, alpha-beta. >the list goes on and on... Sure... but what is your point? Things are published and if good are used. Isn't that the goal of the author? But you can't say commercials never publish things. I somewhere still have the SARGON book with the complete source code. You know Internet connects people. I often talk with other programmers by email. You will be surprised how open we are to each other. You have no idea. [ snip ] >>>and the 'commercial engine' authors doing a fine job of emulating a >>>black hole. >> >>And here we go again....... >> >>There is nothing special I have seen in the Crafty source code. Just the >>basic things, well tuned and documented, but nothing special. > >No "special parallel search?" Non-trivial to do. Non-trivial to get right. >etc. no unusual evaluation terms? Seems that _everybody_ suddenly decided >that it was 'right' to probe in the search, not just at the root. I've been >doing it about as long as Bruce (he wrote his own tablebase code, while I used >the Edwards stuff that was public. Edwards was doing it before I was, >obviously, as he wrote the probe code for Crafty. Whether he probed >exactly as >I do today is another question. But I notice that more and more commercial >programs are doing that. Where'd it come from? You don't get the point. You imply in public that every commercial chess programmer uses the Crafty source code to improve their own chess program. This is not true, at least not for me. Do you have evidence concerning all the others? You do talk (in the) plural all the time you know. >>And what do you expect people to do with your source code anyway then >>to have a look at it? Isn't that the purpose? > >Sure... but you guys don't get it. Intel spends a year of secrecy to >develop a new processor. They spring it on the world, _and_ they publish >papers describing _exactly_ what they did. IE they get the lead-time to take >advantage, but then the publish details that takes the entire industry >forward. You guys? Where do you have this information from? Where is your evidence commercials using your code? I don't use your code and I like to make it clear since you have made it a topic here and keep on saying it. >Does that sound like commercial computer chess? When was the last serious >technical publication by _any_ commercial chess programmer that revealed any >new or novel ideas? Can you name even one? I have given you the best example possible: NULL-MOVE. It was a breakthrough as suddenly lots of programs became super-strong and became a serious threat for commercial programs as from that moment on a commercial could lose a game or even games in important tournaments against the so-called amateur programs. >>What do you have against commercial programmers anyway? They give a lot of >>people the joy of a good program and interface to enjoy their hobby named >>chess. Because some are commercial they can afford to spend all their time >>improving their product. Without being commercial the interface and engine >>would be on a level of years back. >> >>Ed > > >That is totally ridiculous. (1) I don't have anything against 'commercial >programmers' other than their hatred of bright lights and their love of >secrecy to try to remain on top of the SSDF and get those extra few sales. Hatred???? Where is your proof? Is this mud-throwing real? I like to stop here if you don't mind. I don't like to discuss in this way. Ed >No intent to advance computer chess in general, _whatsoever_. Just an >attempt to glean what information they can from others, plus add whatever >they are able to to make a stronger engine. > >You forget that most commercial programmers were amateurs at one time. So if >you get right down to it, 'amateur programmers' have provided at least 75% of >all the chess developements. The other 25% are secret, and spread over >several different people. All with one goal in mind, to sell another copy. > >We have a large 'amateur' pool that has suddenly 're-formed'. Let's see how >the 'amateurs' are doing in two more years. Because we too can play this same >game and keep a few new ideas here and there very quiet. And not release the >source for certain special algorithms that seem to work. > >Another example. Every commercial program is going to use endgame databases >soon. Where do those databases come from? Did the commercial programmers >develop the generators, the probe code, the indexing scheme? They probably >don't even understand that. But they will use the databases. Where did they >come from? From yet another person who thought it would be nice to invest >some time and take computer chess (in general) forward a few steps. > >And you don't think that should taste a bit sour to many? > >As I said, a "black hole". Which is a very dense object, into which stuff >flows in, but nothing flows out. It wasn't meant as any sort of insulting >term, just a very descriptive metaphor. > >I don't like it. But I can't change it. I will mention it on occasion, to >keep the amateurs 'up and going'. The gap is closing. > >> >>>That is the difference that I see.
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.