Author: Peter Kasinski
Date: 14:51:13 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 17:41:42, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 11, 2001 at 17:33:04, Peter Kasinski wrote: >[snip] >>But why insist on science? > >No reason, really. Just a personal preference. > >>Isn't it equally valid to call it all a competition >>(which, after all, it is) and things falls into place nicely. Better ideas win >>and influence progress. > >If you do not know what the superior algorithm is, how will that influence your >progress? Oh, but it will. Not directly, no - but not wanting to lose can be a strong motivating factor. Secrecy impedes the growth of computer chess as a science. It does not necessarily do any harm to its entertainment value. PK > >There *is* another possibility. If there were billions of dollars at stake, a >huge amount of effort would be flung at getting a competitive edge. In such a >case, hiding information could _possibly_ spurn innovation for a while for the >single reason that a huge number of talented individuals would become involved >(and few of them would leave). On the other hand, I don't see that ever >becoming an economic reality.
This page took 0 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.