Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 11:06:05 01/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 1999 at 08:13:32, Harald Faber wrote: >On January 05, 1999 at 03:45:13, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: > >>I recently met a former Microsoft department head, who is now a chess coach and >>using many of the availble playing programs, databases & tutorials. What he >>told me I found truly amazing! He said that the currently availble programs >>were from a programming point of view rather unsophisticated and trivial in >>design. How could he make such a statement without seeing the source code? I doubt that this is indeed the case. the programs that exist today are very sophisticated. Perhaps their interfaces leave some things to be desired, but this is a metter of personal taste. He suggested that if Microsoft (or other large software maker), decided >>to get involved in creating these things, the results would (or at least could), >>blow away the currently existing things in the marketplace. > Great! Just what we need...MS Chess 2000...requiring a 400 MHz Pentium II, 425 MB of disk space, DVD drive, and 128 MB RAM (Minimum requirements). And shipping only 3 years after it was promised. And for what? A program that can beat 99.99999% of the chess playing public instead of the 99.9999% that the top programs can beat today? A 3 million game database rather than the 1 million games many people have now? More neato chess sets like CM6K has (Perhaps Bill Gates as the White King, and Larry Ellison as the Black one?!) ? I doubt that they even could improve the state-of-the-art by very much. If they started from scratch, then it would take them at least a couple of years to play catch up (regardless of the amount of $$$ you have, you still have to do testing, development, more testing, etc.). If they bought a great engine already made, then how much would they be able to improve the engine? Good systems programmers or application programmers don't necessarily make good chess programmers; I think it would take them a while to catch up on the basic theory of chess programming, and having 30 novice assistants probably wouldn't help Bob Hyatt or Ed Schroeder be a better programmer....just a more annoyed and distracted one. Perhaps on the interface they could help. Perhaps on database features they could help (Just think...we could do all of out database queries in SQL! What fun!), but overall, I really don't think that they'd really make that much of a splash. >What is amazing in there? Microshit has much more manpower and much more money >to develop a strong engine and a fine GUI. >The commercial programs (exception Chessmaster) are programmed by only one or 2 >persons. They would also not be able to write winword as it is, there are some >more people involved. >If Ed, Marty or whoever would have more co-programmers there would be a big jump >in GUI and in strength. Just look what happened after Ed has co-operated with >Christophe. Chris Dorr USCF Life Master
This page took 0.03 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.