Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 08:15:37 12/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2001 at 05:54:05, Gordon Rattray wrote:
>On December 12, 2001 at 00:33:36, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On December 12, 2001 at 00:01:38, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>On December 11, 2001 at 23:45:28, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Which expert would be the best chess program author?
>>>>
>>>>Chess expert (master level, not the "Expert" classification of USCF)
>>>>Programming expert
>>>>Game theory expert
>>>>Computer hardware expert
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure there are more fields where experts would be qualified to write a
>>>>strong chess program, but these seemed to be the best candidates that I could
>>>>think of at the moment. Feel free to add another field of study to this list.
>>>
>>>{IMO} The best in the world are [in no particular order]:
>>>0. Deep Blue team
>>>1. People who have topped the SSDF
>>>2. People who have won a WCCC or WMCCC
>>>
>>>Mostly, they are programmers. Hans Berliner was a chess expert, but also a
>>>programming expert. Deep Blue team had GM advisors.
>>>
>>>I think, to be successful, you will have had some kind of input from all of the
>>>above. [Chess expert, Programming expert, Game theory expert, hardware expert].
>>>
>>>Probably hardware expert is not as important as the others, but it certainly
>>>would not hurt any.
>>
>>
>>
>>The least important kind of experts from the list above are the chess experts.
Interesting statement. but... How do you know?
>>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?
Particularly in endgames and the transition between middlegames and endgames
where the computers have huge disapointing weaknesses.
Besides, it is a little bit unfair to the people who prepare opening books.
Everybody knows how important that is. That is more important that
knowledge of hardware IMHO.
Regards,
Miguel
>
>Also, chess knowledge must help while testing a program. e.g. if it loses a
>game, where did it go wrong?
>
>I would have thought that "computer hardware expert" would have been the least.
>
>Gordon
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.