Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 13:37:42 01/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 1999 at 15:59:51, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 06, 1999 at 15:25:33, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On January 06, 1999 at 15:06:29, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >> > >[snip] > >>>No argument here. MS has always made some of the very best development tools. >>>But this also goes to something I mentioned, in a way. Compiler design and >>>optimization are pretty arcane and complex subjects, much like chess >>>programming. >>> >>>Ask the development team how long they've been doing compiler stuff. My guess is >>>that many of them will say 'A long time'. Take a group of application >>>programmers, with no experience in compiler stuff except, perhaps, for a >>>compiler design course in college. How long do you think it will take to ramp up >>>to being as good as the current VC++ team? My guess is that it would take quite >>>a while. Maybe a couple of years. Until then, they won't be writing world-class >>>compilers. After that, they'll be competitive. >>> >>>Take this same group of talented engineers and programmers, and throw them into >>>the chess programming group. I feel that it would take them a similar amount of >>>time to ramp up to the point where they'd be producing state of the art code. In >>>2 years, perhaps they'll be hanging with Ed and Bob, but until then, I feel they >>>won't be as good. >>> >>>I feel that it is the nature of the beast. Has nothing to do with MS or anyone >>>else; it simply takes significant amounts of time to get very good in a complex, >>>advanced field like compiler design or chess programming. And until you reach >>>that point, you really can't add much to the 'state of the art'. >>> >>>Chris >> >>We differs in the following: you insist that *all* members of the >>team must have previous experience. I think that for the small >>group (say, 5 developers or less) *leader(s)* must have a lot >>of experience. Of course it'll help if other team members will >>have some experience, too, but that's not necessary. It can be >>replaced by good organization - and MS has an excellent >>traditions here. >> >>So, in our hypothetical situation, MS must go and hire one or >>two best people in the field. All other team can be found inside >>MS itself. Exactly that was done in the past - VMS people were >>hired as leaders for NT development, database people were hired >>as leaders for SQL Server 7.0 development, etc. >> >>Eugene > >I've gotta agree with Eugene here. > >Here's the team: > >Bob, team lead: $750,000 a year salary ($100,000 plus $650,000 based on results) > >2 other strong chess programmers of Bob's choice: $500,000 a year salary >($75K/$425K, but don't tell them Bob's max bonus) > >2 strong GMs with a little programming and chess programs experience: $75K, no >bonus, but the option to go off and play in tournaments 3 months out of the >year. > >4 very strong Microsoft engineers who may have an interest in this area (no >change in salary) > >A support team of testers, technical writers, etc. > >I'd hate to put my chess program up against anything these guys put out. > >Hypothetically speaking of course. > >:) > >KarinsDad At these salaries, would they need any NetWare Engineers/weak Masters? I know someone who might be willing to help out :) Heck...they'd only need to pay me $250,000 a year....I'm flexible like that. :) I'd really like to see the results of something like this. Obviously it won't happen, but it would be interesting, both from the perspective of chess programming and from that of software engineering as a discipline. While we could never really know what would happen until this was tried, my gut instinct still tells me that the program they would put out wouldn't be that much better than the best competing programs from Ed, ChessBase, etc. How much work (on the engine specifically; I know they could do great stuff with the interface and features) do you think could be parted out to the other programmers? When I wrote my pathetic little excuse for a chess program, it had many of the components of decent programs (piece square tables, various extensions, decent opening book [never really completed], relatively complex evaluation function), I couldn't see where I could have used the help of someone as or less experienced than I was with chess programming. Admittedly, I wasn't a very good programmer, but I had read the literature, and dissected some of the source-available programs out there. Perhaps at the more advanced levels, some programming assistance could be of help, but from a software engineering perspective, I have my doubts about involving a team in this; I think you'd reach the point of diminishing returns *very* quickly. Chris
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.