Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: note

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 21:05:56 07/08/03

Go up one level in this thread


On July 07, 2003 at 13:56:15, Ralph Stoesser wrote:

>On July 07, 2003 at 09:24:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On July 07, 2003 at 07:14:39, Ralph Stoesser wrote:
>>
>>I remember a time that in computerchess some very scientific university programs
>>won the world title.
>>
>>That was when the programs could search like up to 9 ply or so.
>>
>>Sincethen Rebel won the open world title and it was a PC program from then on.
>>This year the only scientific program joining at more than 1 processor will be
>>DIEP. however because there has been fulltime work performed at the engine for
>>quite some time and i doubt whether you can see it as only scientific.
>>
>>Not using the money generating ICGA definition, but the time invested, then the
>>world title will be won by a pro for sure this year. It was like that the last
>>13 years too.
>>
>>That is because they can earn their living creating a chess engine.
>>
>>In short when search depths will go deeper a bit than they are now, and when it
>>would be possible to make a living selling a backgammon engine, then all the
>>amateuristic ANN crap will be gone for sure.
>
>One problem for backgammon programming is that there is not so much theory about
>what good play means available like for chess. For chess we have many patterns,
>rules, books, databases on how to play a decent game of chess. For backgammon
>it's harder to find such things. Especially for a position type called
>'backgame', which is very complicated to handle accurately, there are no good
>theory books available if I'm not wrong. I think that's the main reason for
>beeing ANNs successfully there. To be able to hand tune a backgammon evaluation
>you would need such concrete informations. But nevertheless I can see your point
>also. In backgammon programing is not much commercial competition like it's the
>case in chess programming, that's true.

I only know that the prices of chess programs went down relative to the prices
in the past so I guess that not a lot of people are interested in buying
a chess program.

I do not think that the main reason for competition in chess programming is
money.
I guess that the main reason that programmers develop chess programs and not
backgammon programs is not money but the fact that they are interested in chess
more than in backgammon.

They may also sell their engines if they can do it but money is not the main
motivation.

Uri



This page took 0.04 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.