Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 13:53:34 01/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 1999 at 16:14:42, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 05, 1999 at 15:50:51, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: > >> >>I agree that they would be able to do some things better, but how much >>improvement in I/O or tablebase handling is needed? Crafty and Winboard have >>been done (basically) by one person each, and it they handle I/O and EGTB's >>fine. I haven't seen too many commercial programs lately that need much >>improvement in parsing user input. >> >>I agree that a good opening book would be a benefit, and this they could >>certainly do, but could they do it better that Rebel, for example? I don't >>really see how. Jeroen Noomen has worked very hard, and produced a top-notch >>opening book; perhaps it could be improved, but by how much? How long would it >>take? >> >>Documentation? Absolutely! There a big company could shine. But will they >>improve the software itself? I really do doubt it; Crafty is already one of the >>top 10 speed players in the world on fast hardware (at least on ICC, it outrates >>almost all of the GM's at blitz - I'd take Crafty on a Quad Xeon 450 vs. anyone >>on earth in a match!). Perhaps another 10 or 20 or 50 points can be squeezed out >>of the same hardware, but I don't think some kind of 'Manhattan Project' >>approach is what it will take to accomplish that. >> >>I honestly feel that software increases in strength are coming very slowly now; >>I have a 8 or 10 year old program (Zarkoz 2.61) that can hang with the best >>commercial programs of today (it loses, but not terribly. I played it against >>Rebel 8 in a short match, and it lost something like 8-5 or 9-5). The increases >>that have happened over the last few years have been spurred more by hardware >>increases than software. This is not to disparage the programmers at all; there >>have been definite software improvements; but they are not dramatic, and they >>are more the result of having very good and advanced chess programmers (who have >>spent *years* studying this particular type of programming) like Bob Hyatt and >>Ed Schroeder really direct their talents at an extremely high level of >>sophistication. >> >>You can't toss 50 programmers in a room, and expect them to advance on this kind >>of work by sheer force of numbers, no matter how good they are as programmers. >>I've done my share of programming, and realize that the general programming >>skill of a person is often not as important as a deep and advanced understanding >>of the topic at hand. > >Your observations are correct when talking about general programmers doing >general work. However, Microsoft could hire chess programmers like Bob or Ed >(not necessarily these 2 individuals) who would make excellent team leads. They >could also purchase the source of dozens of chess programs out there. They could >also purchase chess product companies. They could also create an R&D >organization with 5 grandmasters, 5 well known chess programmers, 5 industry >expert computer programmers (like Bob), and 5 Phd AI experts whose charter is to >implement true AI into a chess program (true chess knowledge and understanding >is still considered a real weakness in the current chess program industry). > >When Bill Gates decided to get into the Internet business, he had 4.5 Billion >(that is billion with a b) dollars in cash assets in his company from which he >took 1 Billion dollars and started Internet technology throughout his product >lines. Has he been successful there in an industry that was basically just >starting? Just ask Netscape. > Of course you are correct in this. Microsoft could very easily purchase the entire computer chess software industry in one bite, and probably not even notice it on their balance sheet. I do doubt, however, that by doing so, and thowing tons of cash and talent at the problem, that MS would significantly advance the state of the art. Their program would be able to combine the best of all the programs that they would purchase, and that in and of itself would make the program better, but would the strength improve much? I know that the databases would be great, and the interface could be spectacular, but I don't really think they could much improve on what ChessBase or Ed Schroeder could do. For many, for example, Fritz 5 has a near-perfect interface, near-perfect database features, and near-perfect strength. If ChessBase wanted, they could *easily* combine Fritz 5 and ChessBase 7, and make the interface fully Win95 compliant while keeping all the positives, and would produce (for many people) the perfect chess program. And they could do it for virtually nothing. To me, in a way, it's like asking if you paid some ballplayer $1,000,000,000 a year if he could bat .750 and hit 150 home runs. No matter how much money you throw at the problem, you run up against some fundamental limitations. No matter how much money somebody spends on chess programs, I don't think that you could produce a 3000 rated program (at 40/2) on today's hardware. If this is the case, then there must be some upper limit that *could* be produced. I don't know if it's 2600 or 2800, but there is some limit. This raises the larger question of whether or not we are nearing the top strength of current algorithms. Are we near that limit? Hardware will of course make things better, but really, how much has the absolute state of the art increased over the last couple years. A couple dozen rating points? If that? If there were significant advances to be found in the fundamental algorithms that underly virtually all modern chess programs, I think that somone would have found them. There have ben advances in the implementation of those that currently exist, but when is the last time somebody had a fundamental change in the way their program plays chess that brought them many points? In short, Microsoft could buy every chess program on this planet, and combine the best of these to make a better program than exists now. No argument. But could they significantly advance the state of the art (as the original poster stated that a former MicroSoft manager told him)? I really don't think so. Chris Dorr >> >>Yes, the interface might be made better, and yes the databases might become more >>user-friendly. perhaps the focus could be on tutorials and developing ways to >>use these programs to train better. But will the program play significantly >>better than the top programs today? I really do doubt it. >> >>Chris Dorr
This page took 0.02 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.