Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:36:46 02/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2004 at 21:51:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 25, 2004 at 20:15:26, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On February 25, 2004 at 19:33:38, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On February 25, 2004 at 18:24:05, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Ladies and Gentlemen: >>>> >>>>The ideal CCC moderator should be mature, very smart, tough as nails, and above >>>>all NOT senile. >>> >>>And ideally it should not be folks that makes up stories that they own a purple >>>heart, when they don't. >>> >>>>Technical expertise is somewhat important. >>>>Currently and in the past we have had some excellent moderators and I trust the >>>>same will be true in the future. >>> >>>In general the candidate level is deteriorating here. >>> >>>Additionally the computerchess scene gets dominated in reality by >>>european/middle east progress, but moderation at CCC by North-Americans. >>> >>>>Bob Durrett >>>> >>>>P.S. A few more sophisticated and elegant chess algorithms would be nice too. : >>>>) >>> >>>Good elegant algorithms (or enhancements) never get posted in CCC. >>> >>>In fact i have invented many algorithms / search methods, which i never posted >>>and do not plan to post either. >>> >>>All but one appeared to be big BS in the end anyway, but one looks real >>>promising. >>> >>>I lack time to implement it, because making money is important in life and in >>>general that means not working onto search algorithms, no matter how cool it is >>>to do. >>> >>>Perhaps i will give it a shot 1 week before ict4 :) >>> >>>Most miserably failed the algorithm where i had put a lot of months work in, >>>which started off as a CNS implementation (conspiracy number search). >>> >>>Also failed was a selective searching search method where i had put in 2 years >>>of work (1998+1999). >>> >>>In general in computerchess experimenting with new search methods is what takes >>>a lot of time. >>> >>>Nowadays also time consuming is of course parallellization. >>> >>>When talking about search algorithms (also parallel search) i am sure there is >>>still a lot to invent. Majority of simple stuff has already been discovered. it >>>is very difficult to find new algorithms that use very simple general working >>>principles. >>> >>>However i'm sure there is still a lot to discover when complexity gets added. >>> >>>The reason why in general at universities never complex stuff gets invented in >>>game tree search is simply because the vaste majority, so everyone with one or 2 >>>exceptions (Jonathan Schaeffer is one such an exception of a good guy), they are >>>busy at a level which is so simple. They still must learn basic stuff and are >>>simply busy reinventing what already has been invented then they put 1 condition >>>different and they call it a new algorithm (which IMHO is not a new algorithm >>>then but at most a new tuning of an existing algorithm). >>> >>>So they simply are not *busy* creating complex working algorithms. And as i >>>already said, all effort spent so far by the same majority of researchers has >>>already been put in finding simple algorithms. >>> >>>Of course it would be cool if someone out of that group comes up with a new >>>simple working algorithm that works great. >>> >>>But the odds are small that they will find it. If someone will find it, it will >>>be a computer chess programmer who's not going to post it. >>> >>>This where when you add complexity to algorithms, there is an entire field open >>>to discover new algorithms in. The number of complex search methods published >>>(not counting parallellization algorithms of course which are all non trivial to >>>implement) which you cannot implement within 5 minutes of your time and from >>>which you know in advance that they *must* be tried just in case they work, you >>>really can count them on 1 hand. >>> >>>Yet i'm sure that no coming researcher will focus upon complex algorithms >>>either. The problem is simply it takes yourself to program a quite good playing >>>chessprogram in order to test simple algorithms and figure out whether they >>>work. >>> >>>Only when a researcher has understanding there he can move on to create some >>>more complex algorithms when he has the time. >> >>Let me put my fortune teller hat on: >> >>I see considerable change on the near horizon. In the next 20 or 30 years, we >>should see great technological improvements in digital, computer, and software >>areas. There should be tons of opportunity for chess programming enthusiasts to >>delve into new hardware and software concepts and no one should become bored. >>Indeed, the very definition of "programming" may change radically in our >>lifetimes. >> >>Now I will take my fortune teller hat off again. >> >>Hmmmm. What were we talking about? I forgot. Oh well, Spring will be here >>soon. That should be good enough. I need another snack. >> >>Bob D. > >In general scientists are known for being lazy programmers. In fact they program >just too little. So more powerful computers and another few new object oriented >programming languages will at most extend their holiday with 1 extra afternoon. >Instead of 2 afternoons coding they then code for 1 afternoon a year :) I would bet that this "scientist" has written 100X the number of lines of code you have written. You should stop such stupid generalizations. They make you look like a complete idiot. Actually whether you stop the generalizations or not really won't change that...
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.