Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:38:31 12/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2001 at 19:11:44, Ed Schröder wrote: >On December 21, 2001 at 18:36:51, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On December 21, 2001 at 17:22:04, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On December 21, 2001 at 12:12:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On December 21, 2001 at 05:30:32, David Rasmussen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 20, 2001 at 21:17:40, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 20, 2001 at 17:56:17, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I can't think of a reason why commercial programmers would have an edge over >>>>>>>amateurs when coming up with good ideas/techniques. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It's possible that, due to the amount of effort they can spend, commercial >>>>>>>programmers have/test more ideas, and that's what accounts for the strength >>>>>>>difference between commercials and amateurs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It seems likely, statistically speaking, that any good idea being used in a >>>>>>>commercial program can also be found in an amateur program somewhere. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-Tom >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I agree totally with you. Yesterday I was an amateur, and I'm not different >>>>>>today. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm no genius. >>>>>> >>>>>>What makes the difference in the end is the amount of time one is ready to spend >>>>>>on his chess engine. >>>>>> >>>>>>I am spending 90% of my time since almost 10 years, and before that I had >>>>>>already spend a fraction of my time on it since 1981/1982. >>>>>> >>>>>>That's all. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Christophe >>>>> >>>>>Didn't you just say the opposite elsewhere in the thread? That talent was at >>>>>least as important as resources (time and money => more testing etc.)? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>You need some talent, but that's not as important as time and energy, and the >>>>number of people having the needed talent is greater than the number of top >>>>programs out there. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >>> >>> >>>My view: >>> >>>- Passion 40% >>>- Time 20% >>>- Talent 10% >>>- Programming skills 10% >>>- IQ 10% >>>- Chess Knowledge 10% >>> >>>Ed >> >> >> >>Something like that, but I would give IQ a better score. :) >> >>Or I am just fooling myself? :) >> >> >> >> Christophe > > >About IQ and chess programming (my view), naturally you can not write a top >chess program if you are below 100, but do you really need more than (say) 120 >to make it to the top? Personally I think that passion (the will to perform) >plus the available time are the 2 main ingredients. With an IQ of 140-180 you >certainly have an advantage in comparison to lesser blessed chess programmers >but it is all going to fail if you don't have the ability to accept and overcome >major disappointments. For example, you have a spendlid idea, you put 1 full >month work in that but in the end the idea is not working, worthless, 1 full >month of work for nothing. If such things happen 2-3 times in a row (and they >will happen!) Maybe disappointments are not going to happen if the programmer has the right talent. , your IQ of 140-180 is of not much help, it will probably tell you >to immediately stop with chess programming and start enjoying life again and >never ever deal with this crazy stuff again. No The IQ cannot tell you what you like and what you do not like. Uri
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.