Author: blass uri
Date: 22:06:59 01/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 1999 at 19:05:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 06, 1999 at 18:43:38, Bert Seifriz wrote: > >> >>>>>>Microsoft could probably have the strongest engine in the world in 2 years and >>>>>>if they wanted to, >>>> >>>> >>>>This is exactly the point. Why should Microsoft care to build a >>>>chess engine? They do not have the slightest reason! >>>>And if? They would either buy an existing company or >>>>engage some of the chess programmers you already know. >>>>After all why do you think the persons we know are in any >>>>way inferior to a Microsoft engineer? >>>>There are for example only a handful of persons in the world >>>>who are able to program chess in assembly language! And these >>>>are not MS engineers! Bert >>> >>>Sorry, but I'm absolutely sure that I *can* write reasonable >>>good chess engine. Actually, I had done that 9 years ago (you >>>can download Siberian Chess from GambitSoft chess site; >> >>Hi Eugene, >>I know that because I put it there! >> >>>was not modified after 1991, I think; and then I knew much less, >>>had no access to Western publications/experience, etc). Yes, >>>it was written mainly in C, only absolutely time-critical parts >>>of it were in assembly (first 8080, later I rewrote in 8086). >>>But if necessary, I can write engine in "100% pure assembly". >>> >>>And I'm Microsoft engineer :-) >> >>I know that, too! What I wanted to say is that the chess programmers >>around are in no way inferior to any other software engineers. >>You certainly know >>more about Microsoft than others who do not work there. But the original >>question was somehow what MS could develop within a year. My >>opinion is they could not overtake the current status of chess >>programming within that time. Remember IBM's endless efforts with >>Deep Blue. Although that was maybe more a hardware problem. >>But when MS has more engineers with a past like you it might be >>different!! Bert > > >I don't follow your argument now. IE WRT IBM's DB project. Deep Thought >came along around 1987, and it was *always* superior to any commercial chess >engine. DB took it a step forward beyond that level... The arguement was that they needed more than one year to develop deeper blue. I do not think that it is relevant because they did not throw enough money at depper blue(they did not throw 1,000,000,000$) Deeper blue is also not relevant because we are interested in the program and not in the hardware. The question if they can do a better program that I can use. Uri
This page took 0 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.