Author: blass uri
Date: 11:10:49 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: > >> >>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 > >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? I suggested an idea how to improve the search by work of many people. give many people jobs of doing the definitions when a move is illogical. and give programmers the job of explaining these definitions to the computer. and tell the computer not to analyze lines with many illogical moves. I think that you can also use better programmers than the programmers of the best programs. I believe that today many good programmers prefer to do other things and earn more money. 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 am sure that money is going to help. Some programmers of top programs have a full time Job not in doing the engine. I believe that they could do a better engine without this full time job because they could have more time to develop the engine.
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.