Author: KarinsDad
Date: 17:11:42 01/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 1999 at 17:56:53, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: [snip] > >Perhaps they could catch up in, let's say a year. That's when they *start* to >become really productive. Figure several months for design, coding, testing...I >don't think they could start making a major 'Microsoft Impact' on the field for >2-3 years at the earliest. > >And much of the info available on the internet is probably a bit behind the >times. Team IBM, ChessBase, Ed Schroeder, and the rest probably aren't real keen >about putting their ideas out for public perusal. > >>3) Microsoft has a lot of resources, money, high speed equipment, and talent. >>Just look at what IBM did with Deep Blue. With Microsoft's money, they could >>purchase the source for Deep Blue, reverse engineer it, and improve upon it. >>They could also hire some of the original Deep Thought/Deep Blue engineers and >>possibly even other engineers from other chess engines. > >But that brings us again to the question 'What is the best possible chess >program that can run on current hardware?' Is it 2600? 2800? 3000? How much >better will this 'perfect' program be than the best that exists right now? > >Unless team MS comes up with some profound new idea never before ideated or >implemented, then they are stuck with this limit. And I don't believe that this >'profound new idea' will be discovered by anyone but somebody with years and >years of chess programming knowledge and experience. Chris, I think you have hit the nail on the head with one word: implemented. Bob and Ed have probably come up with sophisticated ideas on how to place more chess knowledge into their programs, however, the ideas involve a lot of work first to design, and then to implement. Paradigm shift ideas often are incompatable with earlier models, so there could be a conflict between re-designing and re-implementing major sections of code and making minor advancements that work in the current design model. Small teams would have a difficult time implementing an advanced complex idea whereas a larger dedicated team with the right people (thinking that Microsoft wouldn't attempt to hire the best people "in the field" who could start out running instead of crawling is naive) could probably create some strong software in a short period of time. I believe that such a project would take a lot of resources and dedication, but the US put a man on the moon in what, 8 years after Kennedy proposed it? Microsoft could probably have the strongest engine in the world in 2 years and if they wanted to, they could have an engine that other engines and superGMs would have a tough time drawing against in 5 years. The current crop of chess programs are still advancing faster then the superGMs (who have basically peaked). I think a more interesting opinion question is: "Do you think that a 3000 rated chess program available to the general public (including GMs) will drastically change the way in which GMs approach the game of chess?" Cheers, KarinsDad
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.