Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 10:21:36 11/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 1999 at 12:45:37, Roy Brunjes wrote: >Christophe, > >You may want to look for some programmers from Russia in the 80's (not even >early 80's necessarily). At that time, Russian programmers had access to only >the very oldest (and therefore slowest) hardware from the west. Their >scientific programmers were VERY creative as a result and some companies in the >early 90's hired them for their programming abilities (very creative algorithms >to make up for slow hardware). I do not know if there were any Russian chess >programmers out there as well, though given their culture's strong interest in >chess, I would think some programmers were active in chess programming. > >Worth a try maybe. > >Roy You are right. BTW, are'nt you the father of a chess program? I believe I downloaded once one made by you, but I am not sure. iT was a demo uncapable of playing. Also not sure abut that. I was disapointed. Not sure, either...Maybe if you are that guy could deliver something we could test and see? fernando >On November 25, 1999 at 04:13:58, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>On November 24, 1999 at 00:02:02, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On November 23, 1999 at 22:53:11, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On November 23, 1999 at 11:59:46, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 23, 1999 at 03:54:48, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>Posted by Christophe Theron on November 22, 1999 at 18:25:35: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Was it better than Sargon II, or just equal? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It was better because Sargon was outplayed by search depth in most >>>>>>>>cases. In that days Rebel was able to look 6 plies deep all very selective >>>>>>>>and much holes involved but very effective playing a program thinking >>>>>>>>just 4 plies deep. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>6 plies on a TRS-80 in the time Sargon took to compute 4? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I have the old Sargon II for TRS-80 manual just in front of me. A green manual: >>>>>>>"Hayden computer program tapes, Sargon II: A computer chess program by Dan and >>>>>>>Kathe Spracklen". I have kept it as a souvenir (I also have the cassette, >>>>>>>but I don't dare to open the box). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The manual says that it took 6 minutes (average) to compute to ply depth 4. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You are saying that in 6 minutes you were able to compute to ply depth 6 on a >>>>>>>TRS-80??? >>>>>> >>>>>>6 plies indeed all very selective but a friend of mine had doubled the >>>>>>processor speed from 1.77 Mhz to 3.5 Mhz. On standard 1.77 Mhz Rebel on >>>>>>40/120 was only able to compute 4 plies and some moves on 6 plies. >>>>>> >>>>>>The first Rebel was a strange animal. I had to re-invent the wheel >>>>>>completely as I had no access to documentation, I wasn't even aware >>>>>>documentation existed. >>>>>> >>>>>>No alpha/beta, no windows, no Q-search, the program could only think >>>>>>in steps of 2 plies. Thus 2,4,6,8 etc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>??? >>>>> >>>>>How did it work? Why the always even depth? >>>> >>>>Maybe he had a big odd/even effect. Funny that he didn't choose 1, 3, 5, 7 ... >>>>though. >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>> >>>From the text I understood it was a search issue. But I don't see why, that's >>>why I ask... >>> >>>The reason I'm interested in this is that in the early days of computer chess >>>programming, people did not know what were the efficient ways to do it. So they >>>tried to invent their own algorithms. >>> >>>Some of them are maybe the future of chess programming. >>> >>>That was one of my objections to the Crafty or GnuChess project. Reinventing the >>>wheel IS fun. Today many chess programs are almost identical. Where is all that >>>creativity gone? >>> >>>God. I'm speaking like Chris W. now! >>> >>>I like to hear about exotic algorithms designed at the time when the computers >>>were very slow. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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.