Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:19:39 02/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2004 at 22:36:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... In this posting mine i didn't mean you Bob, if so i would for sure have mentionned it :) Exceptions proof the general rule :) I doubt though that you have written more code than i have, despite you being longer around in programming life. Crafty would have its own interface otherwise, to just mention one point :)
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.