Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:09:24 01/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2002 at 06:53:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 22, 2002 at 06:40:24, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>On January 22, 2002 at 00:08:18, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 21, 2002 at 15:10:49, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>> >>>>On January 21, 2002 at 04:55:02, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 21, 2002 at 04:07:11, Tony Werten wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 21, 2002 at 03:51:42, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 21, 2002 at 02:32:18, Tony Werten wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On January 20, 2002 at 14:40:08, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On January 20, 2002 at 12:25:29, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On January 20, 2002 at 09:56:43, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On January 20, 2002 at 09:28:51, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>A dutch saying. I "converted" a colleague that has become a friend at work, I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>not entirely sure that this is a noble thing. He is pretty smart and has a broad >>>>>>>>>>>>interest. So we talked a few times about the insides of a chess program. He >>>>>>>>>>>>became interested and I explained alphabeta. The next day he had alphabeta >>>>>>>>>>>>completely figured out in a spreadsheet, and understood it. Two weeks later, he >>>>>>>>>>>>has a working winboard engine... Boy HE goes fast. In May (if there is a Leiden >>>>>>>>>>>>tournament again) he will show up with "Shark". His main target is to crush Tao >>>>>>>>>>>>:-) At first I smiled, and said that is was quite possible in a couple of years. >>>>>>>>>>>>But lately I am beginning to get the feeling that it might be sooner :-) Have >>>>>>>>>>>>you ever seen someone pick it up SO quickly...? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>IIRC Bruce started on Ferret in 1994 and had (from his own comments) an engine >>>>>>>>>>>that could have been commerical by the end of 1995. I think that's certainly >>>>>>>>>>>a remarkable archievement, especially considering that seven years ago there >>>>>>>>>>>was much less information and examples available. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Bruce works for Microsoft. He doesn't count. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I do not understand what is the importance of the question where someone works >>>>>>>>>for the discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Certain workenvironments give acces to a lot of experienced programmers. >>>>>>>>Although it's not a sure it helps, it doesn't hurt either. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Tony >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I believe that there are 2 important things to be good in chess programming. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>1)having talent for programming that means the ability to do fast a well defined >>>>>>>algorithm with no stupid bugs that you need to work hours to discover. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>2)having talent for math that can help you to be better in finding >>>>>>>a better algorithm and to be better in guessing if an idea is wrong or right >>>>>>>based on previous experience. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The number of people who have special talent for both 1 and 2 is small but I >>>>>>>believe that someone with special talent for 1 and 2 can do a top program in >>>>>>>every game in a few weeks. >>>>>> >>>>>>I disagree. You forgot 3) Having new ideas. Not everything is published, so you >>>>>>need a feel of what is happening in your program and then find ways to do that >>>>>>best. 1 and 2 will only give you a decent program. >>>>>> >>>>>>Tony >>>>> >>>>>I think that having new ideas is included in 2 >>>>>people who have a special talent for math need to have new ideas in order to >>>>>discover new things. >>>> >>>>I think (and those are the most seldom) people with a special talent for writing >>>>top programs very fast can do it. But seriously NONE can start from zero an >>>>write a top program in a few weeks, you must be kidding... As far as I know SMK >>>>has the absolute world record, doing it within a couple of months (almost a year >>>>or so I believe). If I am not mistaken he started from zero. >>> >>> >>>I do not think that SMK is the best(I assume that you mean to the programmer of >>>shredder). >> >>We are not talking about who's best. Are you implying Shredder is not a >>top-program? >> >>>I know that shredder is not good in tactics relative to Fritz and I expect a >>>good programmer first to do the program good in tactics(It seems to me easier >>>than investigating how to get better positional evaluation). >> >>You may believe and expect all you want, I have no problem with that. But >>Shredder is a top program, written within a year, where it took all programmers >>I know *way* longer to reach top-level. Morsch, Lang, Schroeder, Theron, Ban. >> >>I think that believing this is possible within 2 weeks shows a lack of insight >>in the matter. But it's no big deal, I don't mind. >> >> >>Best regards, >>Bas. > >Saying that something is possible does not mean that a lot of people can do it. > >I believe that there is a big difference in the ability of humans. >A genius can do in one week things that take a year for other intelligent >people. > >Uri I can add that at least Amir Ban has a full job not in chess programming so without a full job he could do it faster so looking at the time that top programmers needed to do a top program may be misleading. one of the things that can help to do things faster is the ability to concentrate on the same problem for many hours. If somebody is a genius and is able to concentrate in chess programming most of the time then it is clear that (s)he can do things faster. I may be wrong but I guess that nobody from the most intelligent 1000 people in the world tried to develop a chess program. Uri
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.