Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:42:09 06/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2002 at 18:25:57, Matthew White wrote: >On June 25, 2002 at 18:00:36, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 >At the same time, though, doesn't it give the middlegame a huge boost to >initiate a combination which results in a won endgame (and not necessarily a >material gain)? This is something that human masters/GM's do all of the time, >and which computers are incapable of seeing with current techniques (AFAIK). I >realize that many programmers are content to let tablebases do the bulk of the >work. However, what about those endgames with several pawn rams on the board? > >Matt If humans are so smart then why do computers beat humans so often when the humans play in their regular style? I do not believe that knowledge about the endgame can give computers a huge boost in the middle game. Cases when getting a better endgame is the only way to win are not so common. 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.