Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 17:13:43 11/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2002 at 19:51:05, Dann Corbit wrote: >On November 13, 2002 at 19:30:04, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On November 13, 2002 at 18:31:59, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >><snip, snip and snip> >> >>OK. Can we reach agreement that the process of producing a chess engine is more >>like the way Movie was made? > >Most software tools are created incrementally. > >>First the program was created to do certain basic essential things. Then the >>programmer "taught the engine" to do more. After that, then another "lesson." >>This process continues until the program became/becomes very strong. > >Some engines are strong out of the gate. Some engines never gather any >strength, even after years of effort. > >>Presumably, the algorithms implemented in the earliest versions of Movie were >>relatively simple. Then, with each "lesson," more complexity was added to it's >>algorithms. At each step, the new algorithmic content was coded and the coding >>debugged. Perhaps most of what is published about chess engine algorithms was >>not incorporated into the earlier versions but maybe more of it incorporated >>later. > >There are many distinct ways to make a chess engine stronger. One way is to >improve the evaluation function. Doing this does not change the algorithms I guess I don't know exactly what the definition of the word "algorithm" is in this context. I thought that position evaluation was done by a software implementation of a "position evaluation algorithm." >, but >it can change the way the algorithms behave. For instance, if an improved >evaluation function improves move ordering or has some other side effect on the >program's execution, the existing algorithms may run more efficiently. > >>This process likely included some originality and innovation in the development >>of the program's algorithms. Conceivably, the algorithms used are completely >>different from what has been published. "Only the programmer knows for sure." >> >>In the beginning, Movie may have performed weakly because the program [NOT the >>programmer] was relative immature. The same way a human child grows. > >I don't think that programs grow the way that people do. I do think that >programs grow in whatever direction the programmer wants. He may explore new >algorithms or new evaluation terms or many other avenues. Sort of like a "test bed"? > >>Incidentally, when I talk about program maturity, I am not talking about >>programmer maturity. Those are two different topics. > >I would add that programmer maturity may or may not affect programming skill. > >>How about that? > >I don't understand the question. I am asking you whether or not you think I am making any progress in making my perceptions match up with reality, insofar as our topic is concerned. Bob D.
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.