Rebel wrote: I will elaborate a bit since we are having a misunderstanding what I mean with "incremental update" of EVAL. In a normal chess engine (depending on the size of EVAL the engine is in EVAL for 50-90% of the cpu time.
In an "incremental update" engine you don't evaluate positions but moves. You modify the eval score with the changes a move causes. And it's super fast. I did this in my first chess engine (1980) in BASIC, it could even (and was more or less obliged since the absence of a QS) evaluate if a checking move was a checkmate.
I guess you will now understand the implications of such an approach.
Who the hell cares about any of this?
Lemme guess, chess programmers
If Rajlich came back on to the scene tomorrow and presented a Rybka UCI updated version, that he stated was competitive with the now top three chess engines-I'd be online with Pay Pal.
And none of Dr. Hyatt's repetitious guilty tripping about Vas being a code copying cheat would make the slightest difference in my decision to do otherwise.
Enough is enough!
Eh, what I wrote has (and had) nothing to with Rybka, it was about chess programming.
Darkmoon wrote:This is what it means to get over it. To let go, and to move on.
You've been in this room for far too long and all you've done is move the furniture around. That's it!
You've tried so hard to convince the others of your argument - only so that you inturn can be convinced that what you did to this man was justified and right. How bloody sad!
You're delusional if you think-even for a moment, that by having ripped this mans life apart , you've risen to a higher moral ground.
Yes, you should get over it and drop the histrionics.
Darkmoon wrote:This is what it means to get over it. To let go, and to move on.
You've been in this room for far too long and all you've done is move the furniture around. That's it!
You've tried so hard to convince the others of your argument - only so that you inturn can be convinced that what you did to this man was justified and right. How bloody sad!
You're delusional if you think-even for a moment, that by having ripped this mans life apart , you've risen to a higher moral ground.
Yes, you should get over it and drop the histrionics.
Get over what precisely? And where you see histrionics -I see a lack of good Christian morality. But you contend that to be a play -a performance? Actually which one of us here is jaded by histrionics?
Rebel wrote: I wasn't talking about Rybka, just highlighting your condemning and patronizing remarks, the red above.
Again, eh? I have seen ZERO cases of a complete rewrite. Throw out the old code and start from scratch with nothing. That is a dumb way of developing software and that is not a "condescending remark" it is a simple statement of fact. If someone DID rewrite something N times from scratch, they are really very poor programmers. Once, perhaps, to change language, data structures, board representation and everything else. But more than once? What a waste...
So by your logic Fabien and Marcel are dumb programmers, bravo Bob.
Many realities out there but only the Hyatt reality counts.
Here is another reality, mine. Somewhere in the 90's I wrote an experimental version from scratch. The basic ideas;
1. Incremental update of the evaluation function (gain speed).
2. Don't generate all moves at once, just one at the time when you need one (gain speed).
Made no sense to use the regular Rebel code because it was fully ASM, such a fundamental different approach one does in C first and when it has a future you convert the critical parts to ASM for the final speedup.
All the reasons in the world to start from scratch.
I have YET to see where anyone has rewritten from SCRATCH. Not once. So no "bravo, bob" but rather "bravo Ed for wanting to divert the topic rather than paying attention to what has been claimed." "from scratch" means ZERO code (none, nada, etc) retained from previous version. Doesn't happen very often. Certainly not more than once for a single programmer.
Try again, failure here.
Again, the premise has been "more than once". I'll give anyone one complete rewrite after they learned what they did wrong the first time...
I just gave you an example, but feel not to believe me
And I may suspect you know what it means to write an "incremental upate" engine, right? You can't use anything any longer, not even the move generator. So you start from scratch.
And BTW, for clearness sake, you started this discussion with the word "ENGINE". That excludes own interfaces, protocols like WB or UCI.
Why would that be? Cray Blitz was a heavily incremental update program. It updated pawn structure counters (isolated, doubled, passed pawns) and such, move generation information and such. I removed the incremental stuff in the 80's for simplicity and I didn't rewrite everything. Perhaps it depends on how the code is designed and written, but for me it wasn't an issue.
Engine includes whatever plays chess. From book moves, to hashing, to evaluation, to searching, to making/unmaking moves, to detecting check, generating moves, you name it. My basic move generator hasn't changed in a LONG time, even though the methodology for generating moves has. And for clarity, I did talk about "COMPLETE rewrite from scratch" which would be necessary to lose parts of fruit in later rybka versions. Others jumped in with the bogus stuff about glaurung and such, based on half-assed interpretations of what an author wrote / meant and then bending that interpretation to try to make a point that can't be made realistically.
I will elaborate a bit since we are having a misunderstanding what I mean with "incremental update" of EVAL. In a normal chess engine (depending on the size of EVAL the engine is in EVAL for 50-90% of the cpu time.
In an "incremental update" engine you don't evaluate positions but moves. You modify the eval score with the changes a move causes. And it's super fast. I did this in my first chess engine (1980) in BASIC, it could even (and was more or less obliged since the absence of a QS) evaluate if a checking move was a checkmate.
I guess you will now understand the implications of such an approach.
That's what I meant also. In cray blitz we started with an incremental material score that was updated as moves were made or unmade. Ditto for major pieces of the eval. Some things are too expensive to do at every node so we left them to endpoints. But this works VERY poorly in today's world. shallow fat trees work well. Deep narrow trees from today do not work very well. You do a lot of work between the root and each endpoint, where much of that work is wasted, computing something, then removing it, etc. We eliminated the incremental stuff completely by the time we were testing singular extensions and a little of the other selective search stuff we used in CB.
But that still begs the questions, "why rewrite from scratch if you don't like the incremental part?" Get rid of the make/unmake parts that do the incremental stuff. Write an evaluation that does the usual endpoint stuff. All the other code still works the same and is usable. Am I in check? Can I safely capture there (SEE), hashing, etc., etc.
Rebel wrote: I wasn't talking about Rybka, just highlighting your condemning and patronizing remarks, the red above.
Again, eh? I have seen ZERO cases of a complete rewrite. Throw out the old code and start from scratch with nothing. That is a dumb way of developing software and that is not a "condescending remark" it is a simple statement of fact. If someone DID rewrite something N times from scratch, they are really very poor programmers. Once, perhaps, to change language, data structures, board representation and everything else. But more than once? What a waste...
So by your logic Fabien and Marcel are dumb programmers, bravo Bob.
Many realities out there but only the Hyatt reality counts.
Here is another reality, mine. Somewhere in the 90's I wrote an experimental version from scratch. The basic ideas;
1. Incremental update of the evaluation function (gain speed).
2. Don't generate all moves at once, just one at the time when you need one (gain speed).
Made no sense to use the regular Rebel code because it was fully ASM, such a fundamental different approach one does in C first and when it has a future you convert the critical parts to ASM for the final speedup.
All the reasons in the world to start from scratch.
I have YET to see where anyone has rewritten from SCRATCH. Not once. So no "bravo, bob" but rather "bravo Ed for wanting to divert the topic rather than paying attention to what has been claimed." "from scratch" means ZERO code (none, nada, etc) retained from previous version. Doesn't happen very often. Certainly not more than once for a single programmer.
Try again, failure here.
Again, the premise has been "more than once". I'll give anyone one complete rewrite after they learned what they did wrong the first time...
I just gave you an example, but feel not to believe me
And I may suspect you know what it means to write an "incremental upate" engine, right? You can't use anything any longer, not even the move generator. So you start from scratch.
And BTW, for clearness sake, you started this discussion with the word "ENGINE". That excludes own interfaces, protocols like WB or UCI.
Why would that be? Cray Blitz was a heavily incremental update program. It updated pawn structure counters (isolated, doubled, passed pawns) and such, move generation information and such. I removed the incremental stuff in the 80's for simplicity and I didn't rewrite everything. Perhaps it depends on how the code is designed and written, but for me it wasn't an issue.
Engine includes whatever plays chess. From book moves, to hashing, to evaluation, to searching, to making/unmaking moves, to detecting check, generating moves, you name it. My basic move generator hasn't changed in a LONG time, even though the methodology for generating moves has. And for clarity, I did talk about "COMPLETE rewrite from scratch" which would be necessary to lose parts of fruit in later rybka versions. Others jumped in with the bogus stuff about glaurung and such, based on half-assed interpretations of what an author wrote / meant and then bending that interpretation to try to make a point that can't be made realistically.
I will elaborate a bit since we are having a misunderstanding what I mean with "incremental update" of EVAL. In a normal chess engine (depending on the size of EVAL the engine is in EVAL for 50-90% of the cpu time.
In an "incremental update" engine you don't evaluate positions but moves. You modify the eval score with the changes a move causes. And it's super fast. I did this in my first chess engine (1980) in BASIC, it could even (and was more or less obliged since the absence of a QS) evaluate if a checking move was a checkmate.
I guess you will now understand the implications of such an approach.
Who the hell cares about any of this? If Rajlich came back on to the scene tomorrow and presented a Rybka UCI updated version, that he stated was competitive with the now top three chess engines-I'd be online with Pay Pal.
And none of Dr. Hyatt's repetitious guilty tripping about Vas being a code copying cheat would make the slightest difference in my decision to do otherwise.
So your true motive finally surfaces. I didn't bring the topic up. I responded in a few places where I had input to offer. You offer zero.
vittyvirus wrote: They argue with logic and proofs, and people will choose their paths anyway. You're telling Ed that he doesn't know Computer Science, do YOU know who Ed is?
Terry knows. What he is doing is trying to shut down this thread by posting insults. Nice tactic. Has often worked in the past.
That's a lie, but lying is something that comes easy to you.
You're sabotaging the thread and lying and blaming me. What a manipulator you are Ed. Now you will likely do what you can to have me ban. That's what I call a lowlife tactic.
You should get banned. You should not go around belittling a man who obviously is quite or at least was a substantial figure in computer chess. There are reasons why people have the opinions that they do, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Ed has a lot of good, solid evidence to back up his case. More than likely he probably does have a lot of truth to what he is saying (he actually backs up his claims...). Your claim to simply suggest that any reasonaby intentlligent person should just listen to Hyatt (I do not care about his expert status) is ridiculous. Reasonably-intelligent individuals here in this community should understand that many authors within the ICGA had motives to find ways to get rid of Vas. The guy was winning all of their tournaments; Rybka was unstoppable. That is motive enough. I believe that Jealousy played a huge part into the ICGA's obvious desire to get rid of Vas; do you really think the copying of code had anything to do with this? Seriously?
Ultimately, do you not see how pointless this entire debate between both Hyatt and Ed is? Nobody cares about the ICGA (and Rybka is also now dead). They are a dying organization with engines extremely inferior to the world's best. The nTCEC has taken over, whether you like it or not, because Martin provides a tournament with many games and many months of competition compared to the joke run by the ICGA. They, to me, and to a lot of the computer-chess community are the ones lying since their rather bold claim that they run the "World Computer Chess Championship" is honestly sadly laughable. Again, it does not really matter. The community chooses where things rightfully go from here - and the ICGA is not found in the books.
Rybka is its own engine. Its Elo being that of approximately 3160 found on the CCRL website is evidence enough. Vas was no idiot. He knew exactly what he was doing. And he clearly is a more talented programmer than a lot of the authors from the ICGA (his engine's dominance proves this despite the accusations).
No matter the words discussed here on this forum, Rybka will always go down in history as being one of the strongest computer chess engines relative to its time period of course.
Vas did exactly the right thing walking away from an obviously pretty sad ICGA organization.
I am happy to see someone with stature stand up for Vasik.
I couldn't have agreed more...
Agree more on what? There's no truth in this reply.
vittyvirus wrote: They argue with logic and proofs, and people will choose their paths anyway. You're telling Ed that he doesn't know Computer Science, do YOU know who Ed is?
Terry knows. What he is doing is trying to shut down this thread by posting insults. Nice tactic. Has often worked in the past.
That's a lie, but lying is something that comes easy to you.
You're sabotaging the thread and lying and blaming me. What a manipulator you are Ed. Now you will likely do what you can to have me ban. That's what I call a lowlife tactic.
You should get banned. You should not go around belittling a man who obviously is quite or at least was a substantial figure in computer chess. There are reasons why people have the opinions that they do, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Ed has a lot of good, solid evidence to back up his case. More than likely he probably does have a lot of truth to what he is saying (he actually backs up his claims...). Your claim to simply suggest that any reasonaby intentlligent person should just listen to Hyatt (I do not care about his expert status) is ridiculous. Reasonably-intelligent individuals here in this community should understand that many authors within the ICGA had motives to find ways to get rid of Vas. The guy was winning all of their tournaments; Rybka was unstoppable. That is motive enough. I believe that Jealousy played a huge part into the ICGA's obvious desire to get rid of Vas; do you really think the copying of code had anything to do with this? Seriously?
Ultimately, do you not see how pointless this entire debate between both Hyatt and Ed is? Nobody cares about the ICGA (and Rybka is also now dead). They are a dying organization with engines extremely inferior to the world's best. The nTCEC has taken over, whether you like it or not, because Martin provides a tournament with many games and many months of competition compared to the joke run by the ICGA. They, to me, and to a lot of the computer-chess community are the ones lying since their rather bold claim that they run the "World Computer Chess Championship" is honestly sadly laughable. Again, it does not really matter. The community chooses where things rightfully go from here - and the ICGA is not found in the books.
Rybka is its own engine. Its Elo being that of approximately 3160 found on the CCRL website is evidence enough. Vas was no idiot. He knew exactly what he was doing. And he clearly is a more talented programmer than a lot of the authors from the ICGA (his engine's dominance proves this despite the accusations).
No matter the words discussed here on this forum, Rybka will always go down in history as being one of the strongest computer chess engines relative to its time period of course.
Vas did exactly the right thing walking away from an obviously pretty sad ICGA organization.
I am happy to see someone with stature stand up for Vasik.
You're only here to subvert the board the complete opposite for why I'm here.
vittyvirus wrote: They argue with logic and proofs, and people will choose their paths anyway. You're telling Ed that he doesn't know Computer Science, do YOU know who Ed is?
Terry knows. What he is doing is trying to shut down this thread by posting insults. Nice tactic. Has often worked in the past.
That's a lie, but lying is something that comes easy to you.
You're sabotaging the thread and lying and blaming me. What a manipulator you are Ed. Now you will likely do what you can to have me ban. That's what I call a lowlife tactic.
You should get banned. You should not go around belittling a man who obviously is quite or at least was a substantial figure in computer chess. There are reasons why people have the opinions that they do, and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Ed has a lot of good, solid evidence to back up his case. More than likely he probably does have a lot of truth to what he is saying (he actually backs up his claims...). Your claim to simply suggest that any reasonaby intentlligent person should just listen to Hyatt (I do not care about his expert status) is ridiculous. Reasonably-intelligent individuals here in this community should understand that many authors within the ICGA had motives to find ways to get rid of Vas. The guy was winning all of their tournaments; Rybka was unstoppable. That is motive enough. I believe that Jealousy played a huge part into the ICGA's obvious desire to get rid of Vas; do you really think the copying of code had anything to do with this? Seriously?
Ultimately, do you not see how pointless this entire debate between both Hyatt and Ed is? Nobody cares about the ICGA (and Rybka is also now dead). They are a dying organization with engines extremely inferior to the world's best. The nTCEC has taken over, whether you like it or not, because Martin provides a tournament with many games and many months of competition compared to the joke run by the ICGA. They, to me, and to a lot of the computer-chess community are the ones lying since their rather bold claim that they run the "World Computer Chess Championship" is honestly sadly laughable. Again, it does not really matter. The community chooses where things rightfully go from here - and the ICGA is not found in the books.
Rybka is its own engine. Its Elo being that of approximately 3160 found on the CCRL website is evidence enough. Vas was no idiot. He knew exactly what he was doing. And he clearly is a more talented programmer than a lot of the authors from the ICGA (his engine's dominance proves this despite the accusations).
No matter the words discussed here on this forum, Rybka will always go down in history as being one of the strongest computer chess engines relative to its time period of course.
Vas did exactly the right thing walking away from an obviously pretty sad ICGA organization.
I am happy to see someone with stature stand up for Vasik.
You're only here to subvert the board the complete opposite for why I'm here.
Ed is wrong, the ICGA is right and so am I!
Terry - it looks like there will never be agreement.
There are good people on both sides of the argument.
And where you see histrionics -I see a lack of good Christian morality. But you contend that to be a play -a performance? Actually which one of us here is jaded by histrionics?
