Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 18:51:12 01/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 1999 at 09:15:29, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >On January 06, 1999 at 18:42:44, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On January 06, 1999 at 16:37:42, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >> >>> >>>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 >> >>Chris, >> >>A team such as this would have several things going for them. >> >>1) The Microsoft talent could be of the caliber that they could search the web >>(and the ICCA journals), run everything past the rest of the team in >>brainstorming sessions, and within a month, have a reasonable understanding of >>the concepts involved in the current technology (i.e. get up to speed). I >>downloaded about 8.5 Meg of thesis papers and other information from the web and >>digested most of it in a weekend. Does that make me as knowledgable as Bob or >>Ed? Of course not. But then again, I don't have them sitting in the office next >>to mine. >> >>2) The chess programmers could be an interface between the MS engineers and the >>GMs. The GMs could relate deeper chess knowledge, the chess programmers could >>come up with ideas on how to implement that knowledge into a program and the MS >>engineers could do the prototyping and proof of concept. >> >>IBM introduced it's new 332 MHz microprocessor last year, the fastest chip >>available at that point on the RS/6000 SP. This chip is 5 times faster than the >>ones used in Deep Blue. Using this chip and a quad configuration, Bob could >>create a program similar to Deep Blue (since MS purchased the source) that does >>16 million nodes per second (200,000,000 nodes per second Deep Blue * 4 >>processors in a quad / 256 processors in Deep Blue * 5 times faster). >> >>If you assume that Deep Blue was running at a 2775 level and that this new >>program is running on the above system at 8% the speed of Deep Blue, shouldn't >>this new program be able to run at least at a 2700 level? How much more could >>Bob do with a specialized team, a lot of resources, and a case of light beer? >>The diminishing returns comes in when you buy the second case of beer. >> >>KarinsDad >> >>PS. I think I'm going to bow out of this thread now. It has gone from mildly >>amusing to just plain silly. > > >Your choice, of course, but I do find this interesting in several levels. > >I still don't believe that that having a team of programmers (as you indicate) >would make things any better. What could they do, that Bob couldn't by himself? > >Their 'brainstorming' after a mere month of immersion would be likely to amuse >Bob more than anything else. Just like the Application programmers >'brainstorming' about compiler optimization (after a month or reviewing the >literature)would probably have the experienced compiler guys wasteing their day >saying "And that won't work, because..." fifty times a day. "Yeah, I know that >problem isn't in the recent literature, but 10 years ago..." > >How exactly are the programmers going to help? I don't believe that you can >'part out' a program like a chess engine because 1. It is relatively small, and >2. the components of it are so interdependent, you can't simply set up the >message passing stuff from one module to another and expect that they will work >together at all. Yeah, they can do the interface, and the database, but the >engine itself (which is what I'm talking about here)? I can't see how they will >do that. I've done team programming before too, and understand that it simply >isn't the optimal solution for many kinds of problems. > >MS Could develop a world class program very easily. They could buy everything on >the planet. But they wouldn't make things much better. Team concept wouldn't >apply well to this situation. If MS wanted to get in the biz, then the only way >the'd make a splash would be to buy Rebel or Fritz or Deep Blue, fit it to a >great interface, give it a nice database, and release it on their label. > >Chris I think the quoted post is quite correct. They would put an experienced person on the engine and leave him alone, or license an engine or whatever. They would spend a lot of time on the UI. They would spend a lot of time on internet play. The non-engine aspects of it would be the point of it as far as they would be concerned. I agree also that this thread is sillly, but I'd rather think of the "what might we expect if we hear that they are working on a chess program" aspect rather than the "what would happen if Bill got obsessed with chess" aspect. They might make a product, but if they do, it won't put the high-end guys out of business. It would probably have one of the commercial engines in it, and it would be a mass-market program. The target market would not be chess players. The target market would be software buyers, who are sub-tournament players. bruce
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.