Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:36:52 12/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2002 at 15:43:16, Tord Romstad wrote: >On December 11, 2002 at 12:32:56, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On December 11, 2002 at 12:00:12, Edward Seid wrote: >> >>You ask a very easy question. >> >>Programming complexity is depending upon how difficult it is >>to beat the competition of course. There is no other measure >>than that. >> >>There has been put so much commercial effort in chess >>that beating the competition in chess is nearly impossible. > >While I agree that the difficulty of beating the competition is a good >measure of the programming complexity, I do not share your definition of >"the competition". Is it not much more interesting to compete with the best >human players than with the best computer programs? > >Tord Romstad Competing with humans you proof nothing with. It is good for commercial sales if you mean that, but other than that you proof nothing with it. You cannot say that a reversi/othello program has been put a lot of effort in when it beats the strongest reversi/othello program. You cannot say that Napoleon (my draughtsprogram) has been put a lot of effort in, because it has won the first human-computer event held. Reality is that i have put in total 2 weeks of programming time in Napoleon. Of course no other draughtsplayer would ever manage that in 2 weeks like this, because i also have put years of effort in DIEP. Perhaps 2 afternoons of my work now will be enough to create something that solves 4-connect. No human can beat it for sure when the 4-connect program starts playing. I hope my point is clear.
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.