Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 14:44:16 01/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 1999 at 14:43:53, Don Dailey wrote: >On January 13, 1999 at 05:17:22, Will Singleton wrote: > >>On January 12, 1999 at 17:04:10, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>>Don, let me know when your individually created chess program canconsistently >>>beat Deep Thought and I'll take back my words. >> >>Hmm, last time I checked, I didn't see anything about hardware design in the >>CilkChess description. Has Don started burning proms? >> >>Couple of more points: a theoretical discussion is more interesting when the >>idea under discussion has some probability of occurring. For example, what will >>happen if a chess set is discovered on another planet? While this has very >>little chance of happening, it has a greater chance than does this Microsoft >>chess business. >> >>However, the question of team vs individual, leaving Microsoft out of it, is >>pretty relevant for chess programming. Progress will almost always occur at a >>faster rate when more than one person is working on a project, for several >>reasons. For chess *engine* programming, the benefit probably tops out at two >>people. Numerous examples abound from the literature. >> >>Don, haven't you always had a collaborator or two on your projects? CilkChess, >>Socrates and Tech? Didn't you benefit from some of these colleagues? >> >>Will > >Absolutely. We have a guy working on the evaluation who is a master >and will do a better job than I could by myself. We have also had a >number of people finding speedups in the code that I missed. We have >3 gui interfaces and have a couple guys experimenting with Temporal >Difference Learning. Aske Plaat has also contributed by improving >our implementation of mtd(f). > >There is also another team of people who built the Cilk language. >Cilk was actually built around the chess program, not the other >way around so I would have to include the whole cilk development >team too. > >Most of these team members are not chess experts, but will go on >to be among the best in the world at whatever they do. But the >bottleneck of the team is me. I get to spend very little time on >Cilkchess and most of this time ends up being to organize these guys >which is the best use of the time I have. > >But Cilkchess is a poor example since I am not a good example of a >"complete chess programmer." I taught myself programming, was >never better than a 1900 player in chess and just absorbed as >many ideas as I could from others and tried to be logical and >rational. A more complete chess programmer, would benefit less >than I would from having a team of experts at his disposal >because he would have less knowledge gaps (or expertise gaps) to >overcome. Wait, wait, wait... this is a double edge reasonning. The higher an expertise, the best he can grasp new ideas, nuances, etc. True: ABC will not be useful for him, but why we must suppose that ALWAYS these other guys will just thinks about the ABC? Fernando > >It would be interesting for me to know how big the core teams of >the top programs are. I'll bet that most of them have limited >consultations other than a gui guy and some of them do their own >gui's too. It seems that many teams also have someone doing the >book which I'll admit can be a big help. > > >- Don
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.