Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 17:35:53 12/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2001 at 14:20:53, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>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
Yes, what I wanted to say is that a strong chess player is not required in a
chess programming team.
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.