Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 14:13:38 05/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2002 at 15:39:34, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >Innovative approaches and breakthroughs are NOT found in the private or >commercial areas (with few exceptions). They are found in Universities or funded >by governments or non-for-profit foundations. Private companies do not have the >money or the time to think "100% free". This is coarse generalization but it is >quite close to the truth. >I would not be surprised that "planning in games" comes from an University >rather than from a commercial programmer. It might not be in a form of >alpha-beta though, who knows?. You can expect that later this idea is improved >dramatically by the commercial guys in little time. That is the way basic and >applied sciences work. > >Regards, >Miguel My point was that this is a question that has been basically unanswered because we simply don't know the answers, that is, "we" the general public do not know the answer. He seems to have the attitude that he's going to ask this question and someone is going to come out and say, "Oh yeah sorry about that guys, I've known about this for years but I just never told anyone. I was just waiting for someone to ask, so here ya go, here's everything you need to know! Enjoy!" and that's not going to happen. I mean either no one knows the answer to his question, or someone does and they haven't shared it with anyone yet, and they certainly aren't going to start because someone asked on CCC. My comments about the answer comming from the "commercial" sector was slightly misinterpreted by you. When we speak of "commercial" programs, we're talking about Fritz, Tiger, Shredder, Junior, Rebel, etc. etc., and the truth of the matter is that in the "commercial" computer chess world, being a "commercial" program doesn't mean the same thing as it does in other areas of the world. Your point is usually correct. Microsoft probably isn't going to make any great scientific breakthroughs, and the ones they do aren't very significant when compared with the academic world's breakthroughs. The commercial computer chess scene is different however. Most of the authors of the commercial chess programs started off as amateur programmers. They made breakthroughs (which they obviously aren't telling anyone and everyone about, which is perfectly understandable) and since they made breakthroughs, they eventually became commercial programs. So those guys have a track record for making these kinds of breakthroughs, and maybe even more so than someone at a university AI department would. I don't see any program from MIT beating the daylights out of Fritz or Tiger. The other side of the coin is Chinook, developed at a university, and able to beat all but one human. Okay, maybe technically Chinook beat Tinsley, but it wasn't in his prime and it wasn't exactly a well earned win since it came from a forfiet. Nevertheless, he seems to have been the only opponent (human or computer) that stood a chance against the machine. So I'm not saying that university studies won't produce something similar in chess. But in computer chess, these kinds of breakthroughs thar are not typical in the regular commercial world are certainly reasonable possibilities. In any case, you're going to either find what you're looking for in some AI journal after a lot of digging for what you want, or you're going to have to figure it out on your own. That's what I think anyway. Russell
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.