Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Modern Chess Programming Goals: What are They?

Author: Bob Durrett

Date: 17:19:39 12/19/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 19, 2002 at 20:03:19, Russell Reagan wrote:

>On December 19, 2002 at 12:43:19, Bob Durrett wrote:
>
>>For someone who is already a proficient programmer, there is still those three
>>years of "internship."  Maybe it's OK for an intern to think of new ideas and
>>new goals occasionally, but their primary objective must be "coming up to
>>speed."  Too much innovative thinking, other than innovation in coding
>>["implementation"] would be counter-productive for them.
>
>I have gotten stuck in this rut many times. I get way ahead of myself, coming up
>with ideas to try out for forward pruning or evaluation, only to realize that I
>am still working on the move generator (or whatever). It kind of takes the wind
>out of your sails when you have this idea you're itching to try out, but you
>have to go chase down a bug in your move generator. Yuck.

Fortunately for you, as you have already reported here, you have a super good
habit of writing down your ideas before they go away.  In due time, you may find
time to make some of them a reality.  Who knows?  YOU may be the next "Gary
Kasparov" of computer chess programming, and the old guys, like Hyatt, will
"just fade off into the sunset."    : )

Bob D.
>
>
>>So, the real question, then, is about the programming goals of the
>>"full-fledged" chess programmers like Hyatt, and a select few others. [Who?]
>>
>>What are these accomplished chess programmers working on nowadays?
>
>I don't know what "they" are working on, but if I were them, here is what I'd be
>working on. Theories develop over time. A theory is put forward, and it either
>sticks of it doesn't. If it sticks, then eventually people find holes in it, and
>over time those holes continually get patched up. At some point, all of those
>patches become messy, and someone comes up with a new theory that will take care
>of all of those "special cases". Then the process happens all over again, and we
>have progress. I haven't been involved in computer chess for very long, but it
>seems like there isn't a whole lot of inovative progress happening lately. Just
>patching those holes. I would be looking for a new theory.
>
>>The "Fritz programmers" are clearly in the business of trying to stay on top.
>>It seems that they are really just barely staying ahead of the pack but not for
>>long.  I would HATE to be trying to stay on top!
>
>Maybe Bobby Fischer had the right idea. Show everyone that you are the best,
>then vanish. No doubt that you'd burn out at some point if you put everything
>you've got into something for a long time.
>
>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.