Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 13:26:36 08/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2001 at 04:31:52, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On August 15, 2001 at 17:53:01, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On August 15, 2001 at 17:37:10, Roy Eassa wrote: >> >>>On August 15, 2001 at 17:05:22, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>A very entertaining contest. >>>> >>>>The comments of the IM's should be worth their weight in gold for the engine >>>>programmers. Nothing like a good public scathing to make someone perk up and >>>>take notice. >>>>;-) >>> >>> >>>I read all the IMs' comments. They are indeed VERY entertaining, but I wonder. >>>They are talking about the programs as if they (the programs) were people. How >>>Fritz and Junior are brothers and play the same. How they are disappointed in >>>Hiarcs because they think it plays so well normally. How Rebel Tiger is unsound >>>and relatively weak, whereas Gambit Tiger is sounder (!). How CM8000 is a good >>>tutor for kids, but they (the IMs) are surprised it's doing well and shocked >>>that it could ever beat Hiarcs. How Genius plays "the same" as the Tiger >>>programs. >>> >>>As we all know, these characteristics are bogus. It's all statistics. A single >>>game between programs can result in almost any style of game and any result. >>>They'd have to look at a 20-game match between two programs before any comments >>>about styles and relative strengths they (the IMs) make would have any validity. >>> Failing that, it's kind of like reading your horoscope: it may sound plausible, >>>but it's all hokum. >>> >>>My $0.02. >> >>I agree with you on the personifications. >>The stuff useful for the programmers will be stuff more like: >> >>"Look at this idiotic move..." >> >>"Doesn't this program know anything about pawn structure?" >> >>"I'd have to give that move a ??" >> >>etc. >> >>The general impressions will be far less valuable. It is the specific details >>that merit keen attention. > >programmers wait for something they will never get. >source code. > >between 2 groups of different people, it needs to translate the ideas in mind. >you cannot wait until chess players talk in source code to you. >if you listen to programmers they talk bits and bytes. no other >chess player is interested or is able to understand. > >it needs to find a language all understand. > >so far i have seen NO comment of any programmer at all. >do they have a mouth ? >play they chess ? >do they talk to their family when they come home ? >programmers seem to be like plants. you can talk with them, but they >do not answer. if you be nice to them they grow. but they will rarely move >to something else. nor react at all. LOL! Great theory! But seriously... isn't this communication problem nearly always present between "normal" people and "experts" (of some technical topic)? In computer chess there is not much established theory beyond the level of "bits and bytes", so it is not easy for the experts to tell you something beyond that level in such a way that a non-expert will immediately understand. I am a programmer myself, and I find it quite difficult to talk about my topic (programming to solve chess problems) without an introduction of the size of a book chapter. If I would spend the necessary time I could write a (sort of) book about the things I do as an expert. Up to now there is no such book which both of us could have read, and so we lack all the useful terms and words to talk about a non-trivial topic. OTOH, I agree with you in so much, that I think the programmers should try harder to explain what they do. But also, the "normal" people should try harder to understand, and read some of the already available material. I have seen several web sites explaining basics of main stream chess programming, and to some extent special features of a single program. After that, those "bits and bytes" may make more sense. On my first reading I also did not like that they talked about programs as if they were people. But then I realized that that just is the language of these experts (IMs and GMs), they are used to talk like that. For programmers such a personification can be dangerous, so they avoid it. Different expertise, different language. Now, that's just my two cents :-) And now I'm going to find a cool beer... Cheers, Heiner
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.