Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:26:22 10/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 1999 at 09:38:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I don't follow. Murray defined R=2 and recursive null-move. I simply didn't >like them early on. I tried them when I first started Crafty, as my intent was >to try _everything_ again (using all my Cray Blitz 'notes', plus anything else >I saw in the literature.) IE I looked at Gnuchess, and it was doing null-move >R=2 recursive well prior to 95 when I started Crafty. That bumped it up in >priority for me. > >In any case, I consider it far more important to publish an idea, than to later >publish details about implementing an idea someone else had already tested. >Chrilly didn't modify the original algorithm for null-move at all. His main >contribution (IMHO) was the idea of useing the null-move result to detect >threats. But 'null-move' itself was 'prior work'. I think you started doing R=2 after talking to me, and I did R=2 based upon the Donninger article and was enthusiastic about the results. I don't understand the point of this thread. It is clear that if you want to learn good stuff, you read articles on research programs or talk to amateurs. That's the meat and potatoes, which is not subsumed by the small amount of gravy you'll get from the professionals. I don't know why Donninger is being used as an example of a professional. He is professional now, sure, but in 1993 he was amateur. He was technically amateur as late as 1995 and possibly longer. I have benefited with discussion with amateurs primarily, and from reading articles in the ACC books, a few other books, and the ICCAJ's. I think the amateurs figured out the internet before the professionals, so that's at least some of this. You'll talk to whoever is there, and so far it's been amateurs. I have received a few ideas from professionals. David Kittinger in particular provided me with some help at the 1995 WCCC. I've got a few ideas from Ed's posts. Frans told me something at a WMCCC that I couldn't make work. I have compared notes with Stefan and John Stanback. Perhaps the professionals have gotten ideas from me, I don't know. I don't think that there is much magic in computer chess programs. The professionals aren't doing anything special, they've just tuned for a long time. If you talk to them, if you are wimpy you'll get a lot of info, but you could get this from amateurs. Once your program gets stronger you get ideas from frank discussions, but the ideas don't always work in your implementation. bruce
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.