Werewolf wrote:Larry,
What is your & Don's release cycle plans for Komodo?
Do you plan to follow the once-per-year model or the Rybka 2 model of a release every few months?
Personally, I think for serious chess players the Rybka 2 model was the best of all.
I think we will release far more often than once a year, maybe something like the Rybka 2 model. My feeling is that we should make a release whenever we have a significant improvement, at least enough that no one will be able to claim that it was not an improvement.
Just a comment as a prospective engine purchaser, I would really
like to see real position examples showing improvements on engine
web pages. Endless ELO statistics can get tiring, and tells you
nothing about analysis capabilities!!
Andrew wrote:Just a comment as a prospective engine purchaser, I would really
like to see real position examples showing improvements on engine
web pages. Endless ELO statistics can get tiring, and tells you
nothing about analysis capabilities!!
Andrew
We could do this, and perhaps in the future we will, but basically it is misleading unless it is done to illustrate some specific piece of new knowledge added. Most improvement comes from two sources: improved search, which shows up in reduced time to "see" things, and more accurate eval, which means a higher frequency of "correct" evaluations. In both cases it's easy to find positions where any version looks better than another one, even if there are more positions where it would look worse. I'm sure we could find positions where Fritz 5.32 finds a better move than Komodo or Houdini if we looked hard enough. Some people like to show performance on a large set of problems, which at least correlates fairly well with improved rating but which can also be misleading, as some search changes help tactics but hurt positional play.
The problem with Mr. Houdart is ... he isn't faithfully to his costomers and to each others. That made the situation in the latest months not esay for so many of computer chess people.
Completly different to yourself or the Naum programmer. No secrets about own opinions to sources by others. That made your persons much more interesting.
Robert Houdart seems to have knowlegde in chess programming and success with the playing strength of Houdini. This one stand of the other site of the medail.
I think we have to learn that the good old times in chess programming are over. Secrets are available for each one. Now its time to find out the best combination of good known ideas. The older group of chess programmer, fighter from the first hour, have some problems with this constellation because most of the secret and ideas comes from this group of programmers. I can understand it but we should learn to look in the future and modern group workings.
So the actual time is interesting to follow the new way computer chess is going on.
Older computer chess people have to learn to understand the normely IT software developements. It was clear that all this will be come with internet sooner or later.
I have for myself big respect for the programmers "grandfathers" and all this what this group do for our hobby. That are the superstars in my opinion. Again this grandvathers the newer group of programmers with strong engines can not fight. Each fight will be lost.
This have nothing to do with the results from the newer group of programmers. We all like programs like Critter and the work you do for an example. The new super stars which have a lot of programming knowledge are perhaps the persons which find out completly new ideas in chess programmings in combination with the old and good known knowledge.
Normaly it make no sense to fight.
More to accept each others.
But important is faithfully and here Robert Houdart have now a very bad call. I think actual he can't repair it, to late!
Andrew wrote:Just a comment as a prospective engine purchaser, I would really
like to see real position examples showing improvements on engine
web pages. Endless ELO statistics can get tiring, and tells you
nothing about analysis capabilities!!
Andrew
We could do this, and perhaps in the future we will, but basically it is misleading unless it is done to illustrate some specific piece of new knowledge added. Most improvement comes from two sources: improved search, which shows up in reduced time to "see" things, and more accurate eval, which means a higher frequency of "correct" evaluations. In both cases it's easy to find positions where any version looks better than another one, even if there are more positions where it would look worse. I'm sure we could find positions where Fritz 5.32 finds a better move than Komodo or Houdini if we looked hard enough. Some people like to show performance on a large set of problems, which at least correlates fairly well with improved rating but which can also be misleading, as some search changes help tactics but hurt positional play.
I'm referring primarily to comparing versions of the same program which
as you said may refer to new knowledge added or could be showing
bugs that have been fixed. Or even bugs that have yet to be fixed
The point is not the rating (there are many lists for that) but to show
how a program is improving for analysis. Some of the changes may have
a negligible affect on rating, others a huge affect!
Unfortunately in the past with most program updates the descriptions
given are often very wooly and vague, especially when they
come from Chessbase!
Andrew wrote:Just a comment as a prospective engine purchaser, I would really
like to see real position examples showing improvements on engine
web pages. Endless ELO statistics can get tiring, and tells you
nothing about analysis capabilities!!
Andrew
We could do this, and perhaps in the future we will, but basically it is misleading unless it is done to illustrate some specific piece of new knowledge added. Most improvement comes from two sources: improved search, which shows up in reduced time to "see" things, and more accurate eval, which means a higher frequency of "correct" evaluations. In both cases it's easy to find positions where any version looks better than another one, even if there are more positions where it would look worse. I'm sure we could find positions where Fritz 5.32 finds a better move than Komodo or Houdini if we looked hard enough. Some people like to show performance on a large set of problems, which at least correlates fairly well with improved rating but which can also be misleading, as some search changes help tactics but hurt positional play.
I'm referring primarily to comparing versions of the same program which
as you said may refer to new knowledge added or could be showing
bugs that have been fixed. Or even bugs that have yet to be fixed
The point is not the rating (there are many lists for that) but to show
how a program is improving for analysis. Some of the changes may have
a negligible affect on rating, others a huge affect!
Unfortunately in the past with most program updates the descriptions
given are often very wooly and vague, especially when they
come from Chessbase!
Andrew
Ed's website always had lots of information regarding changes and improvements to his engine. This is why I purchased all of them. Take a looksee, it would be nice to see something like this again.
It's a pity that Swami is no longer publishing his STS test results: IMVHO, it was an interesting evaluation tool for engines ability.
Do you agree?
txs
Enrico
noctiferus wrote:It's a pity that Swami is no longer publishing his STS test results: IMVHO, it was an interesting evaluation tool for engines ability.
Do you agree?
txs
Enrico
Frank Quisinsky wrote:The problem with Mr. Houdart is ... he isn't faithfully to his costomers and to each others. That made the situation in the latest months not esay for so many of computer chess people.
Completly different to yourself or the Naum programmer. No secrets about own opinions to sources by others. That made your persons much more interesting.
Robert Houdart seems to have knowlegde in chess programming and success with the playing strength of Houdini. This one stand of the other site of the medail.
I think we have to learn that the good old times in chess programming are over. Secrets are available for each one. Now its time to find out the best combination of good known ideas. The older group of chess programmer, fighter from the first hour, have some problems with this constellation because most of the secret and ideas comes from this group of programmers. I can understand it but we should learn to look in the future and modern group workings.
So the actual time is interesting to follow the new way computer chess is going on.
Older computer chess people have to learn to understand the normely IT software developements. It was clear that all this will be come with internet sooner or later.
I have for myself big respect for the programmers "grandfathers" and all this what this group do for our hobby. That are the superstars in my opinion. Again this grandvathers the newer group of programmers with strong engines can not fight. Each fight will be lost.
This have nothing to do with the results from the newer group of programmers. We all like programs like Critter and the work you do for an example. The new super stars which have a lot of programming knowledge are perhaps the persons which find out completly new ideas in chess programmings in combination with the old and good known knowledge.
Normaly it make no sense to fight.
More to accept each others.
But important is faithfully and here Robert Houdart have now a very bad call. I think actual he can't repair it, to late!
+1
Houdart, well... what would happen if he posted an apology message?
Frank Quisinsky wrote:The problem with Mr. Houdart is ... he isn't faithfully to his costomers and to each others. That made the situation in the latest months not esay for so many of computer chess people.
Completly different to yourself or the Naum programmer. No secrets about own opinions to sources by others. That made your persons much more interesting.
Robert Houdart seems to have knowlegde in chess programming and success with the playing strength of Houdini. This one stand of the other site of the medail.
I think we have to learn that the good old times in chess programming are over. Secrets are available for each one. Now its time to find out the best combination of good known ideas. The older group of chess programmer, fighter from the first hour, have some problems with this constellation because most of the secret and ideas comes from this group of programmers. I can understand it but we should learn to look in the future and modern group workings.
So the actual time is interesting to follow the new way computer chess is going on.
Older computer chess people have to learn to understand the normely IT software developements. It was clear that all this will be come with internet sooner or later.
I have for myself big respect for the programmers "grandfathers" and all this what this group do for our hobby. That are the superstars in my opinion. Again this grandvathers the newer group of programmers with strong engines can not fight. Each fight will be lost.
This have nothing to do with the results from the newer group of programmers. We all like programs like Critter and the work you do for an example. The new super stars which have a lot of programming knowledge are perhaps the persons which find out completly new ideas in chess programmings in combination with the old and good known knowledge.
Normaly it make no sense to fight.
More to accept each others.
But important is faithfully and here Robert Houdart have now a very bad call. I think actual he can't repair it, to late!
+1
Houdart, well... what would happen if he posted an apology message?
