Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 07:52:53 01/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 1999 at 09:17:32, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi Enrique: >Sorry my english, if I use spanish they will say we are conspiring :-)... Now to >the point: it seems that the long awaited G6 is a total disappointment. Not good >results against other top programs. Are we looking the sad, final product of a >chess programming mind of first class? Your impression? Richard Lang is the only one who knows about the development of Genius. I can’t even guess. As soon as I got the final version of Genius 6 I put it to play in my tournament, so the games are my only source of information and I can’t tell yet if there are differences between G6 and G3/4/5, but I was told that there are only tiny changes between G6 and G5, so maybe we should consider the engine in G6 as a Genius 3c. I also remember Lang saying a while ago that it was very, very difficult to improve an already highly refined engine. >Else: Sometime I asked an old good chess programmer of the 80's about how much >time a scientist or technician keeps producing good ideas and he said "for >ever". Now I doubt. It seems that in the sciences or associated fields you are >limited to a cluster of original ideas you have very early and the rest of your >life is the development of them, until exhaustion of potential developments is >reached. Could be the case or Lang? A physicist and close friend of mine was getting desperate before turning 30, because (loose quotation) "in physics what you don’t achieve before 30 you never will." I don’t know about Lang, but we have other cases, like Amir and his Junior 5, so much stronger and more attractive than 4.6, so I guess it all depends on the programmer and his original approach. But this is really a question for programmers to answer. Enrique >Fernando
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.