Author: John Merlino
Date: 10:27:44 06/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 2003 at 06:41:38, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 02, 2003 at 18:42:38, John Merlino wrote: > >>On June 02, 2003 at 15:57:40, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On June 02, 2003 at 15:37:21, John Merlino wrote: >>> >>>>On June 02, 2003 at 14:52:33, Jim Bodkins wrote: >>>> >>>>>As a result of this comment from Da Konig at Leiden .. >>>>> >>>>>"I changed only some minor things, I think that it is very difficult to improve >>>>>the program further. If I start changing things, the program may get weaker". De >>>>>Koning does not want to play in the world championship this year in Graz. "No, I >>>>>don´t want to play there, I want to play Amazons with my program in the >>>>>Olympiad, take a look at the chess games and relax a bit. A world championship >>>>>is a lottery. However, I think that my program would play very well there, it is >>>>>a strong program, of course." >>>>> >>>>>... it appears that TheKing is no longer intended to be competative but is >>>>>instead relagated to a role as an appliance. (Maybe that pays better. It seems >>>>>like a said end to a competative engine however). >>>> >>>>You have missed the point/truth behind both statements. >>>> >>>>The first one merely says that it is "very difficult to improve the program" and >>>>that IF he starts changing things the program may get weaker. This is true for >>>>ANY commercial program. >>> >>>It is not clear that it is true for every commercial program. >>>The fact that a program plays well does not mean that it is very difficult to >>>improve it. >>> >>>Uri >> >>You may be right, but I would generally suspect that it IS true. I would tend to >>believe that most commercial programmers have spent many MANY long and hard >>hours (since they are being paid for their work) on tweaking every aspect of >>their program to improve both the play and the performance. >> >>I doubt that there is anything left on their respective lists that is both easy >>to implement and will provide a definite improvement. If there was, it would >>have been done by now. >> >>jm > >Or maybe there is and they simply did not think about it. > >Uri I cannot argue with that, although I suspect that such improvement possibilities are not very common at all. jm
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.