Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 13:03:32 05/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
My brief thought: Imagine that you have been working on something (doesn't even have to be a chess program) that's the best in its class. You work on it for years and years, constantly improving it, until one day it can no longer be made better. It must be thrown out completely and an entirely new product must be created, perhaps using significantly different (and perhaps unfamiliar) materials and/or techniques. Some people may not wish to start over or may have family or other obligations that make such a task not worthwhile any more, whereas adding incremental improvements to the old item required a *much* smaller commitment of time, energy, and extended focus. On May 05, 2002 at 15:38:44, Fernando Villegas wrote: >All those guys I mention above these lines were, in one moment, authors of good >programs. And all those guys are by now retired from chess programming. >Certainly there are probable other names I do not recall. What happened to them? >It was just a matter of boredom with the field? It was a economic necesity to >look for more profitable areas or endeavour? Or it was that, after they got >into the first rank OR tried to be here, they were not capable to sustain his >positions orget into them? Perhaps the creativity in this field, as in another >scientific or technological fields, is limited? Maybe you have one or two great >ideas -great, paradigms, not just improvements- that after being implemented let >you dry? > >I have not the answer, but some clues incline me to suspect this retirement >happens after a desperate effort to keep - or arrive to - in the top league, >without succes. Look the case of the Spracklen team, Kathe and Dan. They were >top in the beginning of the 80's. In one moment they left Fidelity and were >hired by Saitek to produce a winning-all module for one of his best dedicated, >expensive units. They tried hard. They took long time to deliver. And >nevertheless they were uncapable to defeat the new star, Richard Lang. And very >soon after that they disappeared. Now look at Lang. After Genius 3 we cannot >detect any really important jump of his sucesive versions. They were polished, >refined, improved, but they keep more or less inside the general league of his >best product. He ws supersed by another guys. So after a while Lang retired. >Then look at Hirsch. His first MChess from 1.0 to 3.0 were impressive. He was on >top. Everybody talked of MChess as something great. But then sucesive versions - >from 4 to 8- were more or less of the same level -with improvements, of course- >and MChess was not anynmore one of the three best programs. And Hirsch retired. >And then we have the case of Chris Wittington. He tried hard with a new >paradigm, clearly with the ambition to be author of a top or very near top >program. He did not say so, he insisted in being worried only with a program >with human-like qualities, but after CSTal was not the best against computers >and neither the best against human, he became bored and retired. And then we >have Martin Bryant. Bryan was a succesful chess programmer in the middle 80's >with his Colossus, a middle class but not bad brand. Then he tried hard to jump >to the first league with Colossus X for PC. No way: Colossus X did not get it. >It was better than his Atari and Commodore versions, but not good enough. And >Bryan retired. > >Is, all this, mere coincidence? > >In the other side we have guys like Bob and Ed. They are important players to >this day even after many years in the field. I do not know much about Crafty, >but it seems that every new version has something new to say. It is slowly >approaching the very top level according to many, if it is not already there. Or >Ed. After rebel versions he tried Century with a differet approach and it has >been a big strike. > >Or are they just the exception that confirms the rule? > >A couple of years ago I posted something similar to this an Theron answered >it was not so; a creative guy, he said, can stay creative almost all the time. >But I wonder now if creativity, although sustained, does not lose some of his >edge. This is specially when he task in your hands is severel measured until >almost decimal points. There is not a clear way to distinguish between the very >best musician and the second best in the field of jazz, but in xchess prgramming >-in chess- you have a clear measue: number of wins and number of defeats against >the competence. It is not a matter of taste but of numbers; it is not a matter >of "style" but of scores. As a musician or a writer you can be second but stay >thinking you are the best; in this area you cannot do so. > >What do you think? > >Fernando
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.