Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 23:02:45 11/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2004 at 21:56:58, Mike Byrne wrote: >On November 17, 2004 at 21:11:16, Tony Petters wrote: > >>Now that Computer Chess Software has virtually every feature we could want and >>the engines play at the same strength as Super GMs, what is there left to talk >>about ? >> >>Everyday I come and read some obscure thing that very few people care about. >> >>Food for thought :) >> >>Cordially > >The beauty of chess is that as soon as one engine solves a problem, there is a >another problem to take its place. The number of chess positions is roughly >estimated at ~10^43 at a game of 40 moves. Less than the number of atoms on >earth ~10^50 - but greater than the number of grams the earth weighs ~10^27. > >We have a ways to go yet ;>) What you say is true, but not necessarily in opposition to what he said: "Everyday I come and read some obscure thing that very few people care about." He has a point, I think. There will always be new problems to solve in computer chess, but as computers get faster and software continues to improve, more problems get solved. Thus, at some point the new problems begin to become more and more obscure, and fewer and fewer people remain interested. Does anyone still care about making cars go faster? Of course, but far fewer remain interested today than fifty years ago. To improve upon the current fastest 0-to-60 time, you probably have to be a rocket scientist (literally). To the average person, that's pretty obscure and uninteresting. I have absolutely no hope of contributing improvements to that field, or even understanding the improvements of others, unless I want to go to school for a few years and get a degree in physics. If Stefan Meyer-Kahlen posted Shredder's source code here and described how it all works, how many would be interested? Maybe a few thousand people in the world will have the expertise to understand some of what he's talking about, and the majority of them probably don't read here anyway, or would not be very interested. For example, consider computer science professors who might be able to follow some of the ideas about tree search, but either don't read here or aren't interested in advanced tree search in chess programs. Or how about discussion of adding multiple CPU support to a chess engine. Probably even far fewer would be able to (or want to) follow a discussion about the differences, benefits, and drawbacks of ABDADA, YBW, jamboree, PV-split, APHID, DTS, and so on. You're definitely a knowledgeable computer chess guy Mike. Do you have any clue what I'm talking about? If so, would you be interested in that thread? Of course that is all programming related, but you get the idea I hope. Just because interest exists doesn't mean it isn't obscure or uninteresting to most people. However, I don't think that means we don't need CCC. Out of curiosity, what would you say your primary interest in computer chess is currently? Maybe I'm too focused on the programming aspect, where new improvements are definitely obscure and uninteresting to most people (but not me) :)
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.