why write 2 chess engines??? (for one author)

[Rafael Peña]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Rafael Peña at 31 May 2004 00:38:06:

hello!
i was thinking, why some people make two chess engines (they engines look have more-less the same ELO (strong), i would be better idea have only one, but strong.
i think in someway one can be a pseudo-clon of the other, now there are many chess engines and day after day the number is getting big.
So.. why have 2 or more chess engines ?
=0)
Rafael Peña

[Tom Likens]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Tom Likens at 31 May 2004 00:52:11:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: why write 2 chess engines??? (for one author) geschrieben von:/posted by: Rafael Peña at 31 May 2004 00:38:06:

hello!
i was thinking, why some people make two chess engines (they engines look have more-less the same ELO (strong), i would be better idea have only one, but strong.
i think in someway one can be a pseudo-clon of the other, now there are many chess engines and day after day the number is getting big.
So.. why have 2 or more chess engines ?
=0)
Rafael Peña

Hello Rafael,
Often an author will take two fundamentally different approaches to the
engines. One may be bitboard-based while the other may use an 0x88-based
data structures etc. You're right of course, that some things may overlap,
but it's amazing how much depends on the fundamental data structures and how
different internally the two engines will be constructed. Also the programs
may used different hashing schemes, evaluations routines and on and on.
Another other reason, is that one version may be the "stable" version while
the 2nd engine may be used for crazy ad'hoc ideas that may or may not bear
fruit.
And finally, some people just love computer chess programming and really
can't get enough (go figure!)
regards,
--tom

[Roger Brown]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Roger Brown at 31 May 2004 02:01:15:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: why write 2 chess engines??? (for one author) geschrieben von:/posted by: Tom Likens at 31 May 2004 00:52:11:

And finally, some people just love computer chess programming and really
can't get enough (go figure!)
regards,
--tom

To say nothing about the fans of the product of those chess programmers!
We cannot get enough either.
More!
Later.

[Matthias Gemuh]

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Matthias Gemuh at 31 May 2004 07:53:44:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: why write 2 chess engines??? (for one author) geschrieben von:/posted by: Rafael Peña at 31 May 2004 00:38:06:

hello!
i was thinking, why some people make two chess engines (they engines look have more-less the same ELO (strong), i would be better idea have only one, but strong.
i think in someway one can be a pseudo-clon of the other, now there are many chess engines and day after day the number is getting big.
So.. why have 2 or more chess engines ?
=0)
Rafael Peña

Hi Rafael,
your question makes a lot of sense.
Because I am one of those two-engine authors, listen while I defend myself:
I first had only BigLion. When I decided to stop chess programming,
a strange thought crossed my mind : why not give the community a strange
last-minute present before quitting ?
So I made a version of BigLion with a crazy sacrificial style.
I called this version "Taktix", hid it silently on my homepage and said
good-bye to chess programming.
Then a miracle happened : people found Taktix, downloaded it, tested it,
and leaped with joy. I received praises from all over.
Some people proved that only Taktix among all free engines could find
some tough GM sacrifices. When Taktix also outperformed BigLion in
several tournaments, I fought against resuming chess programming, but lost
the fight.
I have been thinking about withdrawing one of my engines, and will
sooner or later do it. Just give me delta time.
Regards,
Matthias.




BigLion + Taktix