Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 11:22:16 11/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 1999 at 13:52:22, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 01, 1999 at 12:55:50, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On November 01, 1999 at 09:08:17, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On November 01, 1999 at 02:48:33, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 30, 1999 at 17:42:36, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On October 30, 1999 at 16:12:12, Pillsbury wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I must appreciate the programmers who do a fine job of creating a grandmaster
>>>>>>who waits for me round the clock, ready to play chess anytime. I even deside how
>>>>>>strong he can play depending on my mood! The price I paid is very small. I must
>>>>>>appreciate the commercial programmers. There is competition to make sure that
>>>>>>there is contribution, improvement etc., This is the way nature works. The
>>>>>>fittest will survive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do not believe in 'free stuff' especially when I want the best!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>karthick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry you feel that way, because you are going to miss Linux, Xwindows, gcc,
>>>>>and a zillion other things that are as good or better than anything you can
>>>>>get commercially.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, there is always someone willing to take your money, so you won't
>>>>>be disappointed on that front. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Here we go again. Bob is the good guy, the commercial programmers are the bad
>>>>ones.
>>>>
>>>>I think Linux is indeed better than Windows, or will be very soon. I have
>>>>installed it, and I like it. I hope one of this day I can contribute myself to
>>>>improve this system by donating some of my time to it.
>>>>
>>>>However there is no comparison between free systems and free chess programs.
>>>>Crafty is so far behind the top commercial programs that it is not an option for
>>>>people that want the best.
>>>>
>>>>It's up to you Bob to improve Crafty. You can do it exactly like commercial
>>>>programmers have done it. But in order to do so, you don't simply need to pick
>>>>already known algorithms but also to invent your owns.
>>>>
>>>>Come on. You can easily prove that commercial programmers don't deserve the
>>>>money they ask for: just release a program that is as strong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>
>>>
>>>Keep believing it is "so far behind the top commercial programs..." Because
>>>you then have to justify your performance at a major tournament where you end
>>>up behind it, or behind programs that end up behind it.
>>>
>>>After all, you haven't 'stomped' me on ICC yet. Maybe you will. Maybe...
>>
>>
>>I'm glad to see you accept the principle of an open comparison.
>>
>>BTW, why don't you send Crafty to the SSDF to let them give us an objective
>>measure of its strength?
>>
>>Did they refuse to test Crafty?
>>
>>What is the ranking you expect to get if they test it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>Myself, Tony Hedlund, and a couple of others spent a lot of time trying to
>make it work for them. Auto232 is simply trash.
I agree. I have some problems myself with it.
> Crafty offers too much
>variability, what with tablebase probes in the search, etc. Every game that
>reached a tablebase hung. Some that didn't reach tablebase positions hung.
>because crafty either moved too quickly, too slowly, who knows.
>
>I am not a computer vs computer competition freak. As I have said, the "best
>computer player in the world" is an untouchable combination. So I am not trying
>to 'touch' that... I leave it to Hsu at present. But Kasparov _is_ touchable,
>even by a microcomputer, over time. I am more interested in that.
>
>How would it do on the SSDF testing cycle? No idea. Probably not particularly
>well. How would the top SSDF programs do vs GM players? based on ICC results
>not particularly well either. So there are two different goals. I don't sit
>and run auto232 tests 24 hours a day vs other computers.
I don't do Auto232 tests. Never. Except when I have to debug this Auto232
nonsense.
I want to make it clear that I don't improve my program by playing Auto232
matches day and night.
> I prefer to sit on ICC
>and take on a variety of GM and IM players to find out what they are going to
>try next, after I stop what they were doing previously.
>
>When you and Ed combined forces, I believe you were going to concentrate on
>being the best in computer vs computer competition.
I would if Tiger was doing badly against computers, but so far I did not have to
concentrate really on this. I just try to improve the chess understanding of my
program, not specifically against computers.
I would like to avoid falling in the trap of developping specific anti-computer
books and anti-computer algorithms.
So far so good.
> I am far more interested
>in the type of competition Ed is interested in, myself, that of out-smarting
>human GM players.
>
>I find the problems quite interesting. As you will, once you release a version
>everyone can run on a server...
As I pointed out in another message Tiger has grown up by playing against human
players at my chess club here in Guadeloupe, on very slow hardware.
I know the tricks the players do, I know how quickly they learn. That is indeed
tough to deal with these issues, but I have done it too.
And I keep on doing it.
Christophe
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.