Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: M$ goes Chess?!?

Author: Eugene Nalimov

Date: 10:28:05 01/06/99

Go up one level in this thread


On January 06, 1999 at 10:21:59, Christopher R. Dorr wrote:

>On January 05, 1999 at 20:29:57, KarinsDad wrote:
>
>>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
>
>Can we toss in a couple of lawyers?! I know a couple of them that I'd love to
>send to Seattle for while.  :)
>
>Seriously, though, I'm not disagreeing that MS could make things better. The
>could make interfaces much better, opening book editors much better, databases
>much better and easier to use. But my issue here is more about the role of
>large-team based software engineering and a project like chess programming. I
>simply disagree with the quoted MS manager who said that MS could easily and
>significantly 'blow away' what currently exists.
>
>I don't think that a large team (as talented as they might be) would advance the
>state of the art to any large degree simply because of the nature of the task. I
>don't think that chess programming lends itself to the necessary partitioning
>that would benefit from having a large team work on it.
>
>I believe that a program like a chess program (or a specialized modeling
>program, etc. ) is fundamentally different from a large application. It's
>inconceivable that a single programmer could put together a world-class word
>processor or spreadsheet today. No one person can write a million lines of code
>in a reaonable amount of time.
>
>But a chess program? Crafty is world-class, and it's source fits on a single
>disk. How would a team of programmers be any more efficient than Bob by himself?
>The code doesn't partialize out well. Of course he could benefit from a
>full-time GM, or a tech writer, but I feel that a single person (or *very* small
>team) would be at more efficient in producing the core functions than a large
>team. To me, it's just the nature of the beast.
>
>Chris

Ok. Here is the example: good optimizing C compiler. I'm not
talking about great effort necessary to confirm with C++
standard, about MFC classes, about different libraries,
etc. - just about code quality. Look at MS Visual C/C++.
If you'll ask "What x86 C compiler generates the best
(fastest) code", you'll have to admit that VC is *the*
answer. Ask Bob. Crafty - without any assembly routines -
is at least 10% faster when it's compiled with VC than when
it's compiled by other C compiler.

I'd bet that size of the optimizer and code generator is
comparable with size of the modern chess engines. Maybe it's
2 times larger, but not 5 times.

Yes, it's part of the huge application, MS Development
Studio. But that part is still the best.

Eugene



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.