Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:00:36 06/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2002 at 16:16:50, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On June 24, 2002 at 18:37:26, Matthew White wrote: > >>On June 24, 2002 at 13:35:12, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>On June 24, 2002 at 13:02:13, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >>> >>>>On June 24, 2002 at 12:43:47, José Carlos wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 24, 2002 at 12:27:40, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 24, 2002 at 12:03:09, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 24, 2002 at 08:38:51, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi Bob, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>you made really a good work for amateurchess and persons which have questions. >>>>>>>>And this now hundrets of years. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I hope you have a long time (future) interest on computer chess, I mean I will >>>>>>>>also in the next year write a chess program and need your help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>A good example for professionals. >>>>>>>>But the most have only interest to make mony and not to help other programmers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>That`s computer chess, unfortunately! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's life, not only computer chess. Everyone wants to make money from his >>>>>>>job. Don't you make any money at all from your job? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> José C. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Best >>>>>>>>Frank >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi José, >>>>> >>>>> Hi Frank, >>>>> >>>>>>I have no interest to make money with computer chess. >>>>>>With computer chess :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>It's my hobby! >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. That's my point. People depend on their proffessional success in >>>>>order to get money for a living. My answer was pointed to your sentence "A good >>>>>example for professionals. But the most have only interest to make mony and not >>>>>to help other programmers." >>>>> Now think of your own job -I don't know what it is, but hopefully you do ;) -. >>>>>You want to be good in your job for not being fired. If you can do something >>>>>others can't, you'll be more valuable to your company; they'll pay you more and >>>>>make your life easier. If you teach all your secrets to the others so that they >>>>>can do it as well as you, but they also can do other things you can't, you'll >>>>>probably be worthless to your company... and fired. >>>>> This is a competitive world. >>>>> Computer chess is a very hard area for being a proffessional, harder than most >>>>>other areas. Computer chess has many talented amateur programmers kicking >>>>>proffesionals, sharing ideas and source code, etc. >>>>> Just imagine someone would create cars and give them for free, and then a lot >>>>>of people get interest in free-cars and start working together to create cars as >>>>>good as the "commercial". Car companies would lose a lot of income -> a lot of >>>>>people would lose their jobs. Then, just then, imagine someone complaining about >>>>>"proffessional" car-builders not sharing knowledge... >>>>> I also like to see the profis here in CCC, but I understand they keep their >>>>>secrets well hidden... They need money to eat! >>>>> >>>>> José C. >>>> >>>>Hi José, >>>> >>>>good comments! >>>>I can not write my points in a perfect English. >>>>But I must not write my points because your opinion is good for me as I can say >>>>"I agreed to 95%" :-) >>>> >>>>The important point for me is that we can find in chess fora much fans of >>>>commercial programs. So for this group of people it's better if commercial >>>>programmers more write about chess and other interesting topics (not only about >>>>his program). Also helps for amateur chess programmers are important ... I mean >>>>a commercial programmer must not give all secrets but can help in the most of >>>>the questions. >>>> >>>>And here I must say, I like the work from John Merlino (as an example). >>>> >>>>I don't know that a lot of people losed here job with a little bit more >>>>cooperations. I mean we produce new jobs if professionals with amateurs more >>>>working (teams are important). We have x possibilitys to make a little bit. >>>> >>>>Example (I wrote this today in German fora): >>>> >>>>I don't like the bad organization from ICCA. >>>>A very bad work for me in the latest years. >>>> >>>>Now: >>>>User give 50 Euro in a year for a memberchip. >>>>If 500 persons give 50 Euro we have 25.000 Euro for more possitiblys to organize >>>>a user friendly WM. >>>> >>>>We can give programmers money for visit the tourneys or can give prizes. We can >>>>create a webpage with much good information about the WM with an online magazine >>>>(like the work from John with his News Letter) and can added downloads of chess >>>>programs for members of this page. We can sent two persons to the WM tournaments >>>>for give live comments in chess fora etc.. >>>> >>>>We can play a qualify tournament on chess server for the WM. >>>> >>>>At the moment we have a problem with computer chess. Bad organizations ... and >>>>in this case we not the chances to try that more persons have interest on >>>>computer chess. >>>> >>>>Sorry for my English, I hope you understand my points. >>>> >>>>Best >>>>Frank >>> >>> Don't apologize, my english is also bad. ;) >>> I think I see your point. If programmers are closer to the customers, more and >>>more people can get interested in computer chess. Well, this might be true, >>>though I admit I don't know. >>> For example, there's a wide market for computer chess in proffessional chess >>>players. Those don't care at all about the programmers; they just want a >>>powerful tool to train with. >>> There's also the user who just wants to play some games and learn from the >>>computer. They also don't care about the programmers. They probably appreciate >>>someone like John Merlino who kindly answers their questions about how to do >>>this or that, but Chessmaster users dont "need" Johan de Konning at all (except, >>>of course, for writting the engine). >>> Finally there's CCC (and similar forums). I like when Ed or Amir show up and >>>coment on something, yes, though it's not a necessary condition for me to buy a >>>program. >>> In summary, it seems that only a small part of potential customers is >>>interested in having the programmers comment in forums. >>> So I'm afraid I fail to understand your point :( >>> >>> José C. >>It seems to me that Frank's point (correct me if I am wrong) is that he is glad >>some professional programmers take the time to help the amateur programmers >>understand difficult concepts and improve their own engines, not so much having >>contact with final end users. As more algorithmic/heuristic improvements filter >>down into "mainstream" chess programming, chess programming as a whole improves, >>and we amateurs may even have improvements that the pros haven't thought of ;). >> >>Matt > >Hi, > >maybe the secrets in chess programming are very small. >I believe the knowledge in endgame is one of the big secrets. > >In middlegame the top amateur programs are not bad in eng-eng matches. I believe that the big secret is the middle game. In endgame there are a lot of rules in books that programmers did not care to teach their programs(for example rules when rook and 2 pawns against rook is a draw) but a lot of games are not decided in the endgames and I consider the middle game as more important. Most programmers did not care to teach programs about endgames not because of some secret but because it is a lot of work for relatively small gain. 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.