Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 11:20:53 12/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2001 at 11:34:09, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 12, 2001 at 08:50:48, Gordon Rattray wrote: > >>On December 12, 2001 at 08:22:44, Steve Maughan wrote: >> >>>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 >> >> >>What you say is true, but it assumes that the developer is weaker in some of the >>other areas (e.g. game theory, program design). I said "assuming they were >>strong in the other areas of course", so the grandmaster/programmer would know >>about things such as knowledge versus speed. >> >>I'm not suggesting that chess knowledge is the most important factor, but I >>think it could play an important part in conjuction with other aspects. >>Consider, for example, if a grandmaster offered to assist a chess programmer as >>and when the programmer saw fit. Surely this would be a significant benefit? >> >>I just don't think that chess knowledge can account for next to nothing. But >>maybe nobody was suggesting this anyway, as my interpretation of "least" (see >>above) highlights. >> >>Gordon > > > >I'm not saying that chess knowledge accounts for nothing. I just dispute the >fact that chess experts have chess knowledge: >1) that would be useful for a chess program >2) that a weak player like me cannot either find by itself or find around him >(by asking to better players or finding it in books) So, you get the knowledge from books rather than personally. In that respect I can argue that game theory is even less important. I bet that most of the algorithmic tricks that you use you either read them once or develop it yourself. You cannot do anything if you are not a good programmer and that, I think, we can agree. Miguel > >I'm doing chess programming since a long time and I don't think I would have >benefited much from a grandmaster by my side, if I had been given the >opportunity to have one. > >And as I have said many times, I even believe that a gransmaster involved in a >chess programming team would be counter productive. > >Human players have to rely on heuristics often designed to compensate for some >weaknesses of the human brain. Computers do not have these weaknesses, and so >should not use these heuristics. An obvious example is the ability for a >computer to compute thousands of complex variations without fearing to miss one. >The human brain cannot do the same. I believe the concept of tempo is also an >example. > >On the other hand there are heuristics the human players use that are of too >high level at this time for computers. I guess the concept of planning is one of >them. Human players are able to build on their past experience to come up in a >given position with a set of plans that are most likely applicable. That's >something I have no idea how to do with a computer. I guess other teams are >working on this idea, but it seems that nobody actually succeeded. > > > > 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.