Author: Jason Waugh
Date: 18:11:31 04/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 11, 2003 at 00:43:18, Jay Urbanski wrote: >That's a silly stance to take. If you look at the progress of computer chess >over the last 10 years I would wager the *vast* majority of the progress can be >attributed to speedups in hardware. Simple test - take a 10-year old chess Well I think yours is a silly stance to take, and have to side with Christophe. As interested as I am in chess engines, I realize that although the world of chess is huge, the number of people interested in chess engines is very small. People just don't care. Adding SMP support to an engine just shows how great hardware is getting.... it doesn't do anything to contribute to the field of computer chess. Working on the programming and the algorithms and the methods and techniques of chess programming does far more to advance the "art" of chess programming and the fields of computer science and game theory - i.e. there is actually a chance to make a difference. Pushing a great chess engine onto many platforms is an interesting programming challenge, and in addition brings computer chess to more and more people, which does far more to advance the status of computer chess and, again, MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I'd much rather see someone come out with a product that introduces new people to a world I love than see someone come out with an engine that beats Fritz by a few ELO points. I'd certainly rather somebody improve their engine through crafty programming than by adding support for better hardware that few people have, need, or want. Jason.
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.