Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 14:29:49 05/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2002 at 15:33:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 28, 2002 at 14:47:17, K. Burcham wrote: > >> >> >>I have been curious about what motivates chess programmers. What do they really >>want from their creation? >> >>1. Money >>2. Number one on SSDF list >>3. To Win most games against human GM > >This is my goal... (#3 above). > > >>4. To gain more Fans >>5. To be looked at as number one programmer >>6. Attention & fame >>7. Only to beat their last version >>8. could care less about any of the above---just a casual hobby >> > >There is a number 9. "academic research". What is a chess program capable >of doing? With a parallel search? With more knowledge? With learning? Etc. >The list is long and the work is _far_ from being completed by anybody. I've >always been fascinated by a "machine" doing the intellectual things that a >"human" does when playing chess. Perhaps it is my love for the old Star Trek >form of science fiction that has been driving this interest for 30+ years... > >Intresting looking at starwars you also have to try to find ideas nobody had ever thought about before. And put them in practice. > >> >> >>I have often wondered who is buying these programs. I have a large family. >>If I ask any of these people who Fritz7 is, they would not have a clue. If I ask >>someone I work with who Century 4 is, they would not have a clue. 95% of the >>people on the street have not heard of Shredder 6 Paderborn. No one I work with >>has ever heard of Chessbase. No one in my family has ever heard of chessbase. I >>wonder what the income is for the top programmers. Not to know their salary, but >>I am curious if the income from their programs is enough to motivate them to >>pursue a better program than their last. Of course we are talking about the top >>selling commercial programs. >> >>Also I have noticed in playing GM, most programs could care less if the GM is >>closing all files. If there was an expensive program that had been tuned and >>tested to play humans, I would buy this. But i would assume there is no market >>for the work that it would take to produce this. maybe also this human program >>would be weak against other programs on SSDF list. also if there was a "tuned >>for programs only book", that was expensive, I would buy this. >> >>I wonder how some of the programmers test their changes as they decide to work >>on another version. This would be very critical to decide to make changes to a >>strong program that is already top five on SSDF list. Maybe some have test >>positions that they trust to use as a standard. maybe they play other programs >>in different time controls and see what results are compared to version before >>changes. I cant believe that beta testers give accurate feedback for program >>strength adjustments. (except maybe Sarah, Jonas, etc.) it would seem from some >>posts and program releases, beta testers are not giving the type of feedback >>necessary to prevent bugs being released to public. One of the top programs was >>released last year, and it was very unprofessionally managed before release. as >>soon as it was released, a huge list developed for patches and complaints. I >>laughed at that one, but I bought it anyway. >> >>If there was an expensive program that was optimized for smp, that was stronger >>than other smp commercial programs, I would buy it. But only if the price was >>high enough to keep the casual program buyer from purchasing it. >> >>If a single processor program was released, that proved it was much better than >>any other top program, and if it was expensive, I would buy it. >> >>You have seen what some chess program buyers will spend on hardware. It would be >>the same with an expensive program. If a new program was released, and sold for >>$350 to $500, became number one on SSDF list by the largest margin. This same >>program everyone says is beating all programs, most of the time. At game >>servers, there is small group of members that win most games using this program. >>Would this sell? I think there is a market for this level of program. >>But it would seem that one or more GM would have to be on payroll for helping >>programmer with new version. if three 2600 GM were on Chess tiger 16 payroll for >>one year full time working on book, knowledge and playing 1000's of games, with >>feed back to programmer----seems this would be very strong. also it would seem >>if a programmer could employ 20 Sarah types, to test matches with new changes to >>program, playing 1000's of games against other top programs to give feedback to >>programmer so that he can decide on final changes to make to program. >> >>Just some thoughts I have. >>kburcham
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.