Author: KarinsDad
Date: 10:15:04 07/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 1999 at 07:09:19, Andrew Williams wrote: >On July 27, 1999 at 20:43:32, syed wrote: > >>How necessary is it to be a good chess player in order to be a good chess >>programmer? I figure the basic core of the program is pretty much standard using >>common algorithms. I am referring to the debugging process. If I find my program >>losing a game, how do I know that my judgement of where it went wrong is 100% >>technically correct, so as to go in amd make necessary adjustments. Looking at >>the posts here, on analyzed computer games, I see quite a few people making a >>level of analysis which would be equal to that of a senior club player. >> >>Arshad > >I think you would be surprised at how strong a program you can make without >being able to play well. I am a very poor player because I don't concentrate >well when playing chess. I am much better at concentrating when I am writing >programs. My program continues to get stronger, despite the fact that I will >never beat it. I have attributed a lack of concentration to my poor play as well. However, I have recently come to the conclusion that it is not just this, but a large number of negative variables, all of which contribute. Lack of concentration, re-examination of moves that have already been discarded (and the reason forgotten), a slight dyslexia when examining positions more than a few ply deep, and a potential overreaction to unexpected or threatening moves. In other words, not thinking clearly. I think that programmers have an advantage over OTB players in that there is no major pressure and no mental abberations involved. A programmer can take days out in an attempt to understand a position or a concept, the OTB player has only a few minutes. I think a lot of player/programmers (such as myself) who choke OTB, are quite capable of understanding the concepts involved and can merge that understanding into a program (beyond the basic algorithms). However, if the goal is to create an extremely strong program, then I feel that you need expert advice (i.e. one or more GMs) in order to accomplish the goal in a reasonable time frame (although trial and error, play against strong humans, and/or programatic game analysis may also accomplish it). KarinsDad :) > >Many people use test sets to help to improve their programs. Others play their >programs against other programs. I prefer to use test-sets, because I only >have one computer. If I had two, I might look at playing games against other >programs. Both of these are rather "broad-brush" approaches. For more specific >things, I look at chess books (which can be difficult to use) and also the >many individual positions that get posted here, especially when someone gives >a clear description of what is going on. > >Andrew Williams
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.