Author: Don Dailey
Date: 22:28:28 01/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 1999 at 03:41:23, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 08, 1999 at 00:52:30, Don Dailey wrote: > >>> >I hear what you are saying, but I tend to feel that more people often >>> >just get in the way. Most projects, even great big ones tend to be >>> >the result of a single vision, often by a single person who is able >>> >to inspire the team. When a project requires huge amounts of manpower, >>> >then numbers really count, such as building a new O/S. If I was a >>> >millionaire and could hire any number of people to write the strongest >>> >possible chess program, I think what I would probably do is hire >>> >many people and let them work independantly and under their OWN ideas >>> >and inspiration. Then I would take the strongest one. It's a case >>> >of 2 heads are not really better than one! >>> >>> Actually, 2 heads are almost always better than one. This has been proven. To >>> illustrate it, years ago a quality team at a company I was working at got the >>> quality team (8 of us) and about a dozen high level managers together to take >>> the Artic Survival Test. Lowest score is best. I had a score of 24. The next >>> best score was 63 out of 19 people (which says a lot about the decision making >>> ability of management, but we won't go there). The second part of the test is to >>> have everyone take the test together (this is done before any scoring on the >>> first part of the test). The score dropped to 15. >> >>I'm sure you are a good team player and were impressed by this >>demonstration staged by your company. > >Demonstration staged by my company? I was too low on the pecking list for them >to stage something to impress me. This came about by a member of the quality >team saying, "I took the Desert Survival Test some years back, let's see if we >can find something like that to illustrate our quality concerns to upper level >management.". We were trying to impress them, not the other way around. > >>But I agree with you, >>cooperation can produce better results and is absolutely necessary for >>big projects where many drones are needed to provide the manpower. >>But if I wanted help mowing my lawn, which might take me about 5 >>minutes to do by myself, do you think I would benefit by getting 100 >>people together to help me? Could I organize this and all the details >>and get it done in less than 5 minutes? I think not! >> >>Computer chess is of course not mowing a lawn, but I believe that a >>very small team, or even one is by far best if you want good results. >>I'll go into why I believe this at the end. > >Do you work for a company or by yourself? > >> >> >>> My point is that if you get a bunch of people together (good thinkers or not), >>> you can almost always come up with a better set of ideas than with an >>> individual. >> >>I'm not talking about some kind of think tank for generating ideas. >>I'm talking about writing a strong chess program. Computer chess is a >>lot more an engineering excercise than it is sitting around dreaming >>up great ideas. And how you put these ideas together is where the art >>is. And when it comes to art, I don't believe there is much strength >>in numbers. Forgive me, but thats the way I feel about it. > >Are you telling me that Bob couldn't create a set of ideas for a better chess >program (I think you believe that the individual can do better than a group) and >that 4 Microsoft assembly language gurus could not take every line of code Bob >produces and convert it into a tight assembly language unit and that 8 MS >testers couldn't be running various versions of it on 200 different machines 24 >hours a day and that 2 MS GUI programmers couldn't take a bunch of requirements >and turn it into a slick interface, 3 database experts couldn't come up with a >better and faster system for the opening books and tablebases, etc.? Again, you >seem to not believe that other people beyond a few select chess computer >programmers have any talent to create good software. > >> >> >>> ... Even Bob has said that the good old days were before the commercial >>> chess programs where you would go to a tournament and everyone would brag on how >>> they had improved their program from the year before. That sharing of >>> information is what got Bob and others to the level where they are today (look >>> at the advantages of the Internet). I think that a lot of people are closed >>> minded when it comes to their evaluation of how well other people can succeed. >> >>But you seem to be one of these people. Your main point seems to be >>that huge corporations are required to do great things, and that >>individuals are not capable of genius or accomplishment on their own. >>I have a different opinion. > >Where in the entire thread did I say that individuals are incapable of >accomplishment on their own? > >This entire thread has been about what MS "could" do. I often said in the thread >that they would need experts from the field. Huge corporations are not required. >Resources are required. Small "expert" groups do not seem to be working either; >in the sense that there are about a dozen small commercial chess companies out >there who cannot seem to make a major leap in the field. The improvements are >there, but incremental and not earthshaking. Just as expected due to the limited >resources. The chess programs of today are near the 2600 mark partially because >they run on 400 Mhz systems. Put them back on a 486 33 Mhz system with 8 Meg of >memory and 120 Meg hard drive from 8 years ago and they most likely won't reach >2400 (please, somebody get a 16 bit version of one of the better programs and >test it out on a real old system). > >> >> >>> A single individual will almost always stagnate after a while without the >>> stimulous of the ideas from other people. Just look at the middle ages where >>> people purposely kept apart and advances slowed to a crawl. >> >>Who are you arguing with? My point doesn't have anything to do with >>this. I'm only trying to refute what I consider a fairly naive idea >>that 20 people are bound to come up with something better than 1. It >>sounds great on paper and superficially makes sense (20 is bigger than >>1!) but is far from clear cut. > >I didn't know I was arguing. I believe it is your contention that a small team >or a single individual (I believe you stated that you would take a bunch of >single individuals, have them each create a program, and take their best program >as the optimal solution) will do better in this field than a larger team. I was >just pointing out that a single individual on his/her own will not do as well in >the long run as a group with that same individual. > >> >> >>> >But the strongest evidence is to look at Windows95 itself. It's like >>> >this huge swiss army knife, not good at anything, but perfectly adequate >>> >at everthing. It's certainly NOT a work of art, and I can imagine that >>> >there must have been thousands of ideas tossed around, rejected, argued >>> >over and eventually voted on and compromises certainly taken. Microsoft >>> >is not really a software company so much as a marketing company and >>> >acquirer of software. The approach microsoft would use would be to >>> >find out who has the best program, and make them an offer. >>> >>> You are comparing an OS with a Chess program? There isn't an OS on the planet >>> that isn't like a huge swiss army knife (although NT and Next were designed >>> fairly well). They are SO complex and SO large that it seems unlikely that >>> anyone will ever get the resources together ever again to create a new one (does >>> anyone see Pink going anywhere?). >> >>This is one of those statements that you will be embarassed to admit >>to saying in 20 years! I remember it being thought that 640K was >>overdesigning the PC and that no one would ever use this much memory. > >I do not think so. Only a major player has the resources to put out a new OS. >And if it is Microsoft, 75% of the OS will be based off of NT (hence, it will >not truly be new and original). Not only that, the recent failures of the other >new OSs (such as OS2 and Pink) has left a bad taste in the mouth of other >companies for investing the type of money required and getting shut out of the >market yet again. A new and original OS may happen in the future, but it most >likely will be WAY in the future (at least beyond the 20 years you give me for >an embarassment). > >> >>I don't think it makes too much sense trying to predict the computer >>future unless you really want to embarass yourself. I personally am >>hoping something really strong, better than windows and even linux >>will come along. I have yet to feel very satisfied with user >>interfaces and OS's, and can't help but think there must be a much >>better mouse trap. I hope there are a few others who are not willing >>to lay down and die but think the same way I do. I'm not going to >>hold my breath waiting for microsoft to do it, but I would welcome >>this if they did and would buy it. They just haven't and it is >>extremely unlikely that they will. >> >> >>> Microsoft did not acquire NT (nor Windows 95). They acquired the services of OS >>> engineers from other companies (such as Cutler) to create it. Yes, some of the >>> ideas (and even some small portions of some of the code) have come from other >>> companies (via their ex-employees), but the largest portion of NT was created by >>> Microsoft. >> >>Windows is big and complex. Of course it took huge amounts of >>manpower and organization. >> >> >>> This concept of "Microsoft buys everything" is vastly distorted. Acquistion is a >>> great way to get into a niche market, but it does not guarantee success all on >>> it's own. That takes work. >>> >>> KarinsDad >> >>I think microsoft probably has a lot of innovative people, but as a >>company they are not innovative. Their big thing is not innovation >>but just getting their products into everyones homes and their hands >>into everyones pockets. This is good business and what they do best. >>They are aggressive, but very conservative and everything they do is >>calculated and controlled. There will be no innovation or risk >>comming from them, that's not what they do. Probably some guy working >>in his basement will come up with the next OS innovation. >> >>- Don >> >> >>P.S. >> >>How would you get a dream team of computer chess programmers together >>to write the very strongest chess program ever? Let's say we took >>Fritz programmer Frans, Rebel programmer Ed, Genius program Richard, >>Junior programmer Amir and others of their calibre. And we decided to >>pay them 1 million dollars each if they produced something 150 rating >>points better than the very best of the bunch and gave them 12 months >>to do it. How would you organize such an effort? >>First of all, they would be motivated by the 1 million dollars to >>share their ideas freely (I assume, unless they are already rich or >>are not motivated by money which is also possible.) Presumably, they >>would just go crazy playing off of each others brilliance and >>inspiring one another to greatness. But then they would have to start >>writing code. If Bob Hyatt was in the group, he might argue for using >>the bit board approach. But most of the other programmers would not >>find this very friendly to their particular approach and would have to >>adapt, or tell Bob he cannot have his way. After comming to some >>mutual agreement (which has a definite chance of not being the optimum >>decision but might be) you will get to the issue of speed vs >>evaluation. Franz will argue strongly for tremendous speed and tight >>code, but perhaps Ed will find this distasteful or too compromising of >>the programs evaluation potential and will argue for more chess >>knowledge. Some compromise will be chosen and one or both will feel >>that the ultimate strength of the program has been compromised. >>Issues of using null move for the selectivity will cause an argument >>between Bob and Ed, and maybe Richard will argue strongly for his >>approach which no one understands but himself. Amir will argue for >>making positional decisions at internal nodes but Bob will hate what >>this does to the hash tables or how he believes it affects positional >>play and will argue for dynamic evaluation at the end nodes only. >>They of course will all have their particular bag of tricks which may >>or may not integrate with the whole project very well. No doubt this >>will cause a great deal of wasted energy figuring this out and >>probably a few more bad decisions will be made to spare someones >>feelings. > >So what you are saying is that this group of brilliant people who can >individually produce good results cannot work in a group and produce better >results. In fact, you are claiming that they cannot work well in a group at all. > >> >>Then we will get into the choice of language. Franz and Richard know >>that assembly language is the only way to go. But this may only be >>something that they are very comfortable with. Someone will argue >>that this will inhibit the ability of the group to work together, so >>this sacrafice will have to be made for the good of the whole in the >>spirit of cooperation. Franz will know that an important compromise >>has been made, but of course the others might feel less useful to the >>group if assembly is chosen, either because they are not as proficient >>at it, or simply that they feel expression of their coding ideas is >>more important given the nature of the project. > >Are you saying that given enough resources, time, and manpower, that Frans, >Richard, Ed, Amir, and Bob are not brilliant enough to realize that they can >have two versions of code: one written in C for readability and standard testing >and the other written in a C/assembly hybrid to make it tight and fast? And that >they wouldn't use the services of some assembly guru to write and test it? > >> >>Perhaps most of the programmers will go along with the group >>decisions, but will feel that mistakes have been made along the way >>and secretly will feel that they could do a better job on their own, >>especially after being armed with a couple of juicy secrets that they >>have learned from the others. >> >>The end result, is that this project is unlikely to produce something >>even as strong as the best of the bunch. If these guys get really >>smart, they will share all their ideas, but write their own programs >>and constantly challenge each other and have internal competitions >>among themselves. There will be no shortage of ideas, but it will not >>come down to having lots of ideas, it will come down to picking and >>choosing the best ideas and integrating them into a single program and >>doing the engineering part right. >> >>But in a year's time, most of these programmers would have made some >>progress anyway on their own. Assuming they manage to come up with >>something somewhat better, you will have to ask yourself if it >>wouldn't have happened anyway with individual efforts? > >You first claim that they would walk away with juicy secrets from each other and >then claim that it probably would have happened anyway individually. You cannot >have it both ways. > >> >>I'm not saying that it's not possible for them to succeed, these ideas >>in fact could magically come together if the right chemistry is there, >>and if in one way or another, the proper leadership is applied. If >>one of these guys emerge to become the defacto leader, which usually >>happens in a group to one extent or another, and this person has the >>humility and genius to recognize the best ideas from each and the >>group respects his leadership enough to let him direct this effort, >>then there is a good chance something good will happen. >> >>But I'm kind of skeptical, being a chess programmer and knowing many >>chess programmers. Most of them are great guys, but also most of them >>are fiercly independent and individual thinkers, and I'm not sure they >>are at their best implementing someone elses vision of how a chess >>program should be written. The one fact that most of you chess >>programmers will have noticed, is that no two programs are very much >>alike. It's amazing how individualistic each piece of code really is. >>And that is why I say it is an art. No two artists are going to paint >>the same picture and the thought of it would not inspire them too >>much. > >Have you ever looked at compiler code? Every compiler is vastly unique. They >have similar functionality, but their internals are often vastly different. This >is the same for EVERY programming effort in the world: spreadsheets, databases, >financial packages. WHY? Because they are written by different people with >different skill sets, different requirements, different languages, at different >times. Why should chess programs be any different than other programs? > >Show me 2 programs in the top 10 which do not use some form of Alpha Beta >pruning (or a mathematical derivative of Alpha Beta) and I'll concede that they >truly are individualistic. Take the Alpha Beta algorithms out of any of those >programs and they will probably drop below 1800 or lower. > >> >> >>Let's not even talk about what would happen if you gave this project >>to a buch of microsoft guys who know little or nothing about computer >>chess! > >Yes, let's once again claim that only chess programmers can write a chess >program. Nobody else in the world has enough talent to research, reverse >engineer, design, and implement like we can. > >> In fact, the very thought microsoft trying to take over >>computer chess turns my stomach! But if they wanted to, what they >>would do is simply buy up chessbase, Rebel or whoever caught their >>fancy. Perhaps they would simply hire some of these guys. This is >>not particularly innovative, but it would be the most conservative and >>effective way for them to get what they want and that is how it would >>work. They would hire their own guys to do some gaudy interface, put >>their name on the box and have a best seller. >> >> >>- Don > >Final note. I'm really skeptical about opinions where people say that something >cannot be done (there is a difference between cannot be done and will not be >done, like my thought on no new original OSs in the future). I'm more optimistic >than that. Usually, the people who say that something cannot be done put >contraints on the ideas such as "those guys cannot work together" or "that >company is not innovative". This thread was a philosophical discussion on what >could be done, given an increase in the resources. Also, I am skeptical that >praising people for their talents as individuals and then turning around and >criticizing their ability to work together within a group indicates as great a >respect for them as individuals as claimed. > >Let's just agree to disagree. > >Keep your chin up :) > >KarinsDad
This page took 0.01 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.