Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 23:38:06 06/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 2001 at 22:05:16, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On June 04, 2001 at 21:15:35, Christophe Theron 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!}
>>>;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>Then mathematically it is obvious that selecting programmers because they are
>>good at chess is a sure way to reject people who are very good at chess
>>programming.
>>
>>Mathematically the fact that some 1800 chess players are high in the above list
>>is enough to refute their student selection system.
>>
>>BTW 2000 elo is not much nowadays. In most countries you need to be much better
>>than that to be listed in the top 100.
>
>Yes. Actually, I misread your post. I thought you said that none of the
>programmers could reach 1800.
>
>Anyway -- you are right that it is clear you do not need to be a GM to write one
>of the world's best chess programs. But I doubt that it hurts. A combination
>of GM and top level programmer (if you could find it) would be hard to beat.
I'm not sure. In my opinion a very strong chess player has too many prejudices
about how a program should think.
From my own experience success in chess programming comes only when you admit
that you have no idea how chess programming has to be done. Then you are ready
to open your mind and discover new territories.
It does not mean that a GM programmer could not understand that, but I believe
that being a GM does not help to pass the difficult moment of "OK, I realize I
understand nothing to the matter and I'm now going to think about it in a
totally different way".
Christophe
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.