Author: Steve Maughan
Date: 05:22:44 12/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
Gordon, >>The least important kind of experts from the list above are the chess experts. >> >>Yes, sorry. > > >I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, i.e. it's possible for something >to be the "least" while still being vitaly important, it's just that other >things are even more vitaly important. ;-) > >I agree that chess knowledge isn't essential in order to write a decent chess >program, but that doesn't mean that having chess knowledge wouldn't make it >even better or easier to write. For example, computers are generally weak in >the area of long term strategic planning. Maybe if more grandmasters wrote >chess programs (assuming they were strong in the other areas of course!) this >aspect could be tackled more. i.e. how does a programmer program "planning" >functionality if they're not very good at it themselves? > >Also, chess knowledge must help while testing a program. e.g. if it loses a >game, where did it go wrong? I think there is a subtler point that Christophe is making - that is *too* *much* chess knowledge can sometimes hamper program development. A program that is written by a chess master may be too ambitious in the knowledge that contains, especially early on in the development. The programmer may find it inconceivable that a concept such as 'tempo', is left out of the engine. This results in a slow knowledge rich engine that is outsearched by the dumber competitors. It is interesting to note that most, if not all, of the top programs are written by sub-experts i.e. with a rating of 1400 - 1800 ELO. It would seem that this range is 'optimal'. Authors with strong chess ability never seem to quite make it to the top e.g. Chris Whittington, Vincent Diepveen. Maybe Vincent has the best chance as he is also a professional programmer. Regards, Steve
This page took 0.01 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.