Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:01:49 01/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2001 at 17:51:13, Peter Kasinski wrote: >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. Motivation won't make your program run faster. If someone makes a revolutionary advance (Like Alpha-Beta, Like Null-move) and keeps it to themselves it may take decades for an alternative to be reinvented independently. If the pool of algorithms becomes known and people still desire to remain ahead, then the effort would still be the same (if not greater) to advance. However, I am not so foolish as to believe that this model will become reality any time soon. As Adam Smith's "invisible hand" fuels the capitalistic nations, the socialistic enterprises feel the brunt of people not working hard to benefit their neighbors. We are easily motivated by greed but very hard to motivate by love. >Secrecy impedes the growth of computer chess as a science. It does not >necessarily do any harm to its entertainment value. This I must readily admit to as sound reasoning. And it is not as if life or death hinges on who wins a chess tournament.
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.