Author: KarinsDad
Date: 17:29:57 01/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 1999 at 19:35:23, Eugene Nalimov wrote: [snip] >>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? > >Why do you think that optimal group will be "1 leader + 50 fantastic >programmers"? I'd suggest something like "1 leader + 2 grandmasters + >5-7 fantasic programmers + 5 very good testers + 1 specialist on >particular CPU architecture + 1-2 administrators + 2 fast computers >per developer + lot of *very fast* test computers". And I'm reasonable >sure that such a team will produce much better results than team that >consist of just 2 leaders. > >Eugene Chris, I agree with Eugene. Obviously, "50 fantastic programmers, who know *nothing* about chess programming" isn't going to cut the mustard. Hence, you would use a sophisticated team of computer software developers including testers, technical writers, managers, accountants (well, maybe one accountant), researchers, reverse engineering specialists, AI experts, chess programming experts, and possibly a few of us grunts who are really interested in it (plus a bunch of people I neglected to mention). Well, I have to go to the chess club. :) Darn! 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.