Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:44:33 02/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2004 at 15:53:16, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 15, 2004 at 14:48:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 15, 2004 at 14:43:06, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2004 at 14:29:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>In view of the size and complexity of Crafty I wonder whether or not cloning >>>Crafty is really a good idea for the newbie chess programmer to get started. >>> >>>On the other hand, maybe there are parts of crafty which could be used in the >>>beginning so that the newbie programmer could concentrate on creating his/her >>>own code for the really important parts. >> >>I don't disagree. The parts that always cause me the most concern center around >>the evaluation and search. I didn't look at his search carefully at all, but I >>did look at the evaluation, and that has too much copied code... There may be >>significant search code copied or not. But copying either is really copying the >>"personality" of the program... > > >I think that by that logic a lot of programs copied the "personality" of Crafty >even if they do not use bitboards. > >Your words imply that it is better if I continue not to evaluate correctly KRP >vs KR endgames because if I evaluate them correctly then I copy the personality >of Crafty that also knows to evaluate them correctly. No, I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. I didn't suggest that. That is your imagination. Here is what I said: "copying _ideas_ is perfectly OK. Copying _source code_ is _not_ perfectly OK." I didn't say any more or less than that. I am talking about copying source code. I would not be terribly concerned by someone copying my move generator, in fact, since that produces deterministic output, and ten different people could write 10 different move generators, but they had better produce the _same_ set of moves. But if you copy the bitboards, and then you copy the static exchange evaluator, and then the positional evaluation, and then ... Then you have simply gone too far. Now, that is all I have said from the beginning. There was _too_ much copied. IE I doubt _anybody_ would do king safety the way I do it, on their own, first attempt at writing a chess program. Copying it verbatim is not OK. I doubt anybody would come up with the exact "compact attacks" stuff on their first bitboard program. I didn't. Ditto for pawn hashing, pawn structure evaluation, even specific code for the stonewall, connected rooks on the 6th, etc... > >I do not think to copy ideas without testing and it is possible that something >that is productive for crafty is not productive for movei because it is already >evaluated by another term but I think that complaining too much about copying >ideas from crafty is not productive and it only can cause people to leave chess >programming. > >Uri I didn't complain. So please stop implying that I did. I was _asked_ "is this a clone?" Is that so very hard to understand? I was _asked_. I simply studied the binary, and concluded "yes it looks fishy." I then was given the source and concluded "it looks even fishier." Have you seen _one_ statement by me in public about this? Answer "no". So please take your accusations elsewhere. I've not said _anything_ about this in public, I have only discussed it in private with the people that _asked_.. If someone asks my opinion, I'll do my best to give it to them. Sorry that you don't like that but I really don't care...
This page took 0.02 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.