Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
Once again you prove you have no clue how modern engines evals are tuned.lkaufman wrote:If your program doesn't see White's advantage here, I think you can improve it by adjusting parameters so as to show White's advantage in this position. I guess I'm now helping Houdini, Ivanhoe, and Critter improve their programs!
Unbelievable...Milos wrote:Once again you prove you have no clue how modern engines evals are tuned.lkaufman wrote:If your program doesn't see White's advantage here, I think you can improve it by adjusting parameters so as to show White's advantage in this position. I guess I'm now helping Houdini, Ivanhoe, and Critter improve their programs!
You still live in a world where you think tuning engine on one specific position could help Elo boost.
Good luck to Komodo with your help... It'll certainly go far.
Don't worry about Milos, he will never admit he is wrong.Terry McCracken wrote:Unbelievable...Milos wrote:Once again you prove you have no clue how modern engines evals are tuned.lkaufman wrote:If your program doesn't see White's advantage here, I think you can improve it by adjusting parameters so as to show White's advantage in this position. I guess I'm now helping Houdini, Ivanhoe, and Critter improve their programs!
You still live in a world where you think tuning engine on one specific position could help Elo boost.
Good luck to Komodo with your help... It'll certainly go far.
Actually this is a question of considerable interest to me. Basically, it comes down to whether it is necessary to have specific bonuses/penalties for having certain pieces opposing certain other pieces, or whether just getting the values right for each sides' army is good enough. Stockfish, Naum, and I'm sure many other programs use the opposing bonuses/penalties. Rybka 3 did to a small extent, Rybka 2.32a and the Ippo family do not. It is my opinion that you can manage satisfactorily without this; we don't do it in Komodo. I feel that if a program does not see White's edge in the given position it is probably just undervaluing minor pieces. However a specific bonus for three minors vs. queen is the easiest fix here, I'm pretty sure your program must consistently overvalue the queen's side of this equation. It remains a mystery to me why the optimum value for minors (compared to majors) seems to be lower for engines than for humans. The values (for minors) that tested as best in Rybka are clearly too low to human eyes. That's why I always used Rybka 3 Human rather than the default for analysis of human games, it had the values much closer to what we human GMs think best.
Larry
I never read that the author of Houdini claimed that he only took ideas and did not take code.Cubeman wrote:So these words "based on" and "taking ideas from" have different meanings and can be interpreted how ever you want.I wonder why he choose to also take the bad ideas too, like the evaluation of this position.I just wish that some authors will come clean with their real contributions.We don't want a repeat of the Rybka-Fruit fiasco.
Is it possible to take code from other engine and then change it ever so slightly and then turn around with a straight face and say you only took the idea?You may be able to kid others but not yourself.
Each and every time he was asked since the beginning he said 'no' orUri Blass wrote:I never read that the author of Houdini claimed that he only took ideas and did not take code.Cubeman wrote:So these words "based on" and "taking ideas from" have different meanings and can be interpreted how ever you want.I wonder why he choose to also take the bad ideas too, like the evaluation of this position.I just wish that some authors will come clean with their real contributions.We don't want a repeat of the Rybka-Fruit fiasco.
Is it possible to take code from other engine and then change it ever so slightly and then turn around with a straight face and say you only took the idea?You may be able to kid others but not yourself.
He said that he took ideas from different sources and it does not contradict taking code.
Robbo is based on a copyright protected version of Rybka; therefore, Houdini is based on a copyright protected version of Rybka. In other words, Houdini is not an original program and ineligible to be sold, given away for free or entered into the WCCC.Damir wrote:So what. Even if he admits that he used Robbo code as bases, than what?
The source is free to anyone to work and improve it..
Are you all here going to feel better about it, if he admits he uses Robbo
code as bases ? Or is the situation still going to be, pretty much the same as
it is now?
In that case I understand why he does not want to say anything...
What's your problem? I only replied to Uri about his (wrong) assumptions.Damir wrote:So what. Even if he admits that he used Robbo code as bases, than what?
The source is free to anyone to work and improve it..
Are you all here going to feel better about it, if he admits he uses Robbo
code as bases ? Or is the situation still going to be, pretty much the same as
it is now?
In that case I understand why he does not want to say anything...
Rybka is based on a open source version of Fruit; In other words, Rybka is not an original program and ineligible to be sold, or entered into the WCCC.Sean Evans wrote:
Robbo is based on a copyright protected version of Rybka; therefore, Houdini is based on a copyright protected version of Rybka. In other words, Houdini is not an original program and ineligible to be sold, given away for free or entered into the WCCC.
Do you understand
Take care,
Sean