Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:08:38 06/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2001 at 22:55:47, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>On June 04, 2001 at 20:56:50, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On June 04, 2001 at 20:49:45, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>
>>>On June 04, 2001 at 18:15:03, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 04, 2001 at 17:44:56, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>>>>>What a major mistake. Strong chess players are not the people of choice to
>>>>>create a strong chess computer.
>>>>
>>>>Berliner did OK.
>>>
>>>Frans Morsch
>>>Amir Ban
>>>Christophe Théron
>>>Christian Donninger
>>>Steen Suurballe
>>>Mark Uniacke
>>>Rudolf Huber
>>>Ed Schröder
>>>Bob Hyatt
>>>Johan de Koning
>>>Marty Hirsch
>>>Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
>>>Richard Lang
>>>
>>>
>>>These are the names of the programmers of the highest rated chess programs
>>>(order of the list).
>>>
>>>How many of these guys are "in the top flight of their national chess rankings"?
>>>
>>>How many of these top programmers are you going to reject by selecting people
>>>who are "in the top flight of their national chess rankings"?
>>>
>>>For your information I don't think I would get a 1800 FIDE elo rating if tried.
>>
>>I know for sure several are 2000 or better. Ed Schroder is a very good player
>>(IIRC -- at least I have seen games of his with brilliant moves). Robert Hyatt
>>was around 2000 [again IIRC].
>>
>>Be that as it may [and even if wrong], Berliner was a world champion and also a
>>GM.
>>It only takes a single counterexample to refute a statement {mathematically!}
>>;-)
>
>If your contention is that great chess ability should be a primary selection
>criterion if you are trying to find people to build a great chess program, then
>a counterexample won't suffice.
>
>There have been several titled players who have tried to mix chess and
>computers. There have been a whole lot of lesser players. The correlation
>between strength of player and strength of program is nowhere near direct. Most
>of the strong programs are written by A players or Experts. The components of a
>strong program can be understood well enough by these people.
>
>If you gave me a list of people who were going to try to build chess programs,
>and I had to pick which one would be most likely to succeed, I would probably
>put the GM behind the A-players, because the A-player is probably an A-player
>because he dropped chess because at some point he became obsessed by a great
>need to hack, and the GM is probably a GM because he loves to play chess, and is
>doing computers to pay the bills.
>
>Love of programming beats love of chess, in this field.
I agree. Actually, I completely misunderstood the original question.
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.