Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:22:57 01/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 1999 at 10:26:39, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >On January 07, 1999 at 21:51:12, Bruce Moreland wrote: [snip] >>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 > >Of course nobody expects that MS would really do any of this. I see this as more >of a theoretical discussion about the nature of chess programming. Is it >amenable to the 'Team programming' concept that you and others have spoused? > >We've already established that MS could make a great interface, and a great >database, but the question on the table is 'Could they improve the state of the >art, regarding the engine?' And I think the answer is 'No'. > >You can't part out a program like a chess program, and expect to improve over an >engine developed by a good, experienced programmer working alone. You nor anyone >else has given a plan for doing so. Do you have an idea about how to do so? You >can think the thread is silly all you want, but the fundamental question is >still unresolved, and nobody has produced any ideas about how to have 'MS rock >the chess world' other than to but the best program in the world. If they are >going to do that, then they haven't made things better, except for the chess >programmer who is now rich. If they are going to keep one programmer working on >the engine by himself, the it begs the question 'Is the chess programmer making >$500K a year going to make a better engine than the guy maing $50 K a year? I think you are mistaking me for someone who is arguing with you. I have never argued that chess engine core work could be effectively divided amongst a bunch of people. There is a logical division between eval and search, and in multi-person teams the work has been divided this way, but search is probably just one guy. The problem is that the project is large, but it's not unmanageably large, and the pieces all interact pretty thoroughly. >Just talking about the strength of the engine, how do you do this? Do I do the >evaluation function, and you do the search stuff? I don't think that will work. >Even a relatively large company like MindScape recognizes that developing the >engine in house would not be very effective, although they certainly could if >they wanted to. They simply buy a strong engine, and fit an interface around it. > >Some programs (like a chess engine) are simply best written by a single person. >GNU has had many talented people work on it over the years. Crafty has had only >one person working on the engine. Which is the better chess program? Actually it isn't true that Crafty has had one person working on it for years. The author of Crafty is Bob Hyatt, and he is certainly the boss, but part of the threat of Crafty is that people are willing to contribute labor: 1) People who fiddle with stuff in general and give Bob ideas. 2) People who write endgame database stuff and give this to Bob. 3) People who code routines in assembly. 4) People who try out new hardware configurations. 5) People who find bugs and positions that Crafty doesn't handle well. 6) People (strong players) who play against the thing and make suggestions. 7) People who look at the thing and make performance suggestions. In a commercial program, any of these could be paid positions. 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.