Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 16:17:11 01/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 1999 at 18:56:51, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Dear Chris: >We does not need to speculate about what could happen IF Bill gates decides to >make a run in the chess field. We already know what happens when you put >toguether a very great amount of resources: critical mass appears and great >jumps are the rsult. Manhattan proyect is an example: many phisicyst already >knew about nuclear reactions et all, but it was needed a huge amount of money, >personnel etc to make it work. That's the reason Germany was not capable, least >Japan. Well, one reason was that German had lost much of the talent necessary because of the emigration of Jewish scientists before the war. But this example, I feel, is not a good model for chess programming. While building an atomic bomb had many components (delivery, stabilization of fissionable material, production of that material, implosion of the critical mass, etc.) that could be worked on independently (under the direction of one overall leader), chess programming has few such components (opening book, interface, database come to mind) that affect the strength of the chess engine. I can't really say 'OK georger...you do the piece square tables...Mike you handle hash table management....Lisa, you get the evaluation function...Ed, do the learning functions". I've written chess programs before (albeit very bad ones), and know how interdependent various portions of them are with each other. >In fact, even if Bill does not do anything about this, it is already happening, >as in any industry once it has reached certain level of development. I think >that Ed and Christophe venture is a sample of that. I am sure they have already >discovered great ideas and new grounds for progress due to his colaboration. In >any science or technology, when you put people to work toguether and gives them >money enough, results begin to flow in mass. To think that the esential thing is >personal creativity of this or that genius is somewhat naive. Truly genuses are >badly needed when no organization and many tools and resoruces are present, but >once organization exist, the accumulative work of high intelligences get more >things that anything an isolated genius can get. >besides, do not believe we have already reache a top level in chess programming. I agree that collaboration is very important. But which do you think is going to produce the better outcome: two world-class leaders in the field (with vast amounts of prior experience and education in the field between them) or one team leader, and 50 fantastic programmers, who know *nothing* about chess programming? >They are very primitive in the fact that, although they get results, the do that >trought a kind of accumulated practical wisdom in the same sense alchemist got >things trought many years of practice. A great research team with money to spare >could get a fundamental jump in terms of creating a real AI chess engine instead >of what we have now, just a machine that run a list of specific routines that >works fine toguether in the most unscientific way, just adding weights and >testing the mix with thousands of games. Alchemy, again. >Anf , of course, don be deceived by the apparent trivial meaning of "just" going >from 2600 to 2700 or even 2650; it is a great jump and you as master know it. If >a great reasearch team can do it, IT will be a wonderfull jump. >fernando But I really don't know where the limit is. You say we're not near it yet, perhaps we aren't yet. But is it reasonable to assume that with current hardware, we can't create a 4000 rated program? I think that's pretty clear. What about 3000? Or 2850? There *is* some limit using currently known techniques, and I happen to think that we may be fairly near it. What about new techniques, you say? Great! But I don't think a team of 50 inexperienced programmers is even a *fraction* as likely to discover new and radical ideas (that work) as would be an Ed or a Bob Hyatt. I just don't believe that that a Microsoft Chess 2000 product would be that superior to a Rebel 2000 or a Fritz 7 product; throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it. Chris Dorr
This page took 0.01 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.