Author: Aaron Tay
Date: 00:41:08 04/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2000 at 07:59:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 26, 2000 at 05:09:26, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On April 25, 2000 at 18:13:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 25, 2000 at 08:16:11, Jerry Adams wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I'm assuming that since there are only a dozen programs currently rated over >>>>2400+ that it must be extremely difficult to program a IM/GM level program. >>>>Does this effort require Above Average ability in programming? If so Why is it >>>>so difficult? Is it just as difficult to becomne a 2400+ programmer as it is to >>>>become a Grandmaster? These Questions are asked out of curiosity. I think one >>>>tends to appreciate these super programms more when you understand the work >>>>which is behind it. >>> >>> >>>You need the following: >>> >>>persistence. If you give up easily, this isn't the right thing to undertake. >>>It takes time, effort, you will make many mistakes and false-starts, and get >>>discouraged. >>> >>>reasonable chess skill. If you don't understand a backward pawn, or a weak >>>square complex, or a pawn majority, or whatever, then your program can't >>>possibly understand them easily. It might be a symbiotic process, as I am >>>sure that my chess skill (at least the positional understanding part) has >>>gotten way better over the years. >>> >>>reasonable programming skill. You don't have to be a 'superstar'. Although >>>chess programming might eventually turn you into one, over time. >>> >>>I think most anybody _can_ do it. But not very many _will_ do it. >> >>There are many people out there who would like to create their own chess >>program, and I believe there's an opportunity for someone to sell a toolkit to >>create such a program (just as there's money to be made making car kits, clock >>kits, etc). >> >>I'm talking here, btw, about a kit that makes it quick and easy to make a >>program. >> >>In 1997, I proposed an idea for how this could work: very briefly, I proposed >>the creation of a set of components for making an evaluation function from. Then >>I proposed a database of chess positions which the user could create themselves. >>Then, for each chess position, the user would be able to create an evaluation >>function (wha is important to look at varies from position to position). In >>play, when evaluating a node, the program would select the position from the >>database which most closely matches the current node, and would use the >>evaluation function to assess the position. >> >>Possibly not the perfect way to play the best chess - but conceptually an easy >>thing for people to understand! I'm frankly a little disappointed that nobody >>has taken up this idea. >> >>-g > > >The idea is good. The problem with it is the same old "time" issue. I can >think of exceptions (Steven Edwards distributed his endgame database code, >his "EPD kit", and so forth, which took a lot of time to modify, test and >debug) but they are rare. The issue is always "do I want to take what I have >done and make it into a box of tinker-toys that can be plugged together or not, >on a whim? Or do I want to make my engine stronger?" For most people, the >latter question is more important. But a few volunteers could certainly take >a couple of freeware programs, and encapsulate the critical functions, so you >could pick and choose between bitmaps and 0x88, between different evals, >different search strategies, etc... Speaking as one of those people who have no programming skills what so ever, but who is interested in a general way how chess programs work, I would be very interested.. In fact, Chessmaster which has a simple personalitie setup generates quite a lot of psots here about finding new stronger setups..What you sugguest, would be much better and allow even more control.. Though I don't understand fully what you sugguest, what you wrote about choosing and creating a evalution function sounds very interesting.. Who knows, a Super GM , with no programming skills might actually be able to tune out a good program by teaching the program what to look out for in various positions.. One thought, though such a chess program toolkit would have debates like "When is a program altered enough to be considered mine.." to come up even more strongly.. Anyone game to do it? This might be even more exciting than another semi-strong chess engine coming along in the already crowded field..
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.