Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 02:07:01 02/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 2005 at 16:33:46, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >I'm not sure how to explain this, so I am just going to fumble around and hope I >can get my point across without being an ass. I simply don't like operators at >big tournaments. Having thought for a while, my problem is that an operator >invests nothing compared to an author. > >Zappa contains roughly 13,000 lines of C++ code (not counting Eugene's stuff). >If I plug that into COCOMO (months = 2.4*KLOC^1.05), I get a development time of >3 years. At standard US Goverment contracting rates (60K/yr, multiplier 2.5) >that equates to $450,000. Any good chess engine will require a similar amount >of time, and I'm sure the amount of time I have spent on Zappa is dwarfed by the >amount Stefan works on Shredder. SOS, Diep, Fritz, Crafty, Shredder, Junior, >Hydra: all of them are the product of YEARS of work. Even "amateur" engines >like Gothmog or Amateur have a lot of man hours behind them. The same goes for >opening book creators. Necchi, Arturo, Kure, Alterman, and Noomen have all >worked on their books for years. So if Arturo & I show up at the WCCC this year >or the next, the total value of our entry is probably pushing $1M, and this >would be dwarfed by some of the other contestants. > >I say this not to brag about my accomplishments, but to show just how much work >it is to compete at high levels in computer chess. It is just like any other >sport; everyone knows that world class swimmers or tennis stars work on their >game every day. The only difference is that instead of getting to the gym for >squats and sprints we hang out at the computer lab improving our move ordering >:) > >An operator shortcuts all that by the simple expedient of purchasing a program >and opening book for 50$, which requires about 0.001% the effort of developing >it from scratch. This has several effects. First, they simply aren't "in the >club", and cannot reasonably expect to be. Secondly, they have none of the >knowledge gained from the years of work, which makes conversing with them much >less interesting. Third, people attach a lot of importance to things they spent >a lot of time on. If I win a tournament with Zappa I feel good about my effort, >if I win using a program I bought chessbase.com for 50$ I feel . . . not much. >If I participate with Zappa and lose to someone who bought Shredder for 50$, it >is only natural that I will resent that. > >This is why all the big computer chess tournaments have insisted on "authors >only". In fact, only the events on the playchess server work differently. If >you want to compete as an author, write a program. It isn't easy, but neither >is it impossibly hard. It doesn't take more than a few months to get something >that can play legal moves. Having written this essay, I realized that it really >says almost nothing that isn't in the subject line :) > >anthony Nice post. Ok - it's not really fair to give $$ estimates to what you do for fun, otherwise my neighbor's garden is _really_ expensive - not to mention the neighborhood basketball game - but the point is quite right. Just to add a little bit - we also want CC to be a sport. The issue unique to CC is that anybody can buy all the top programs, and run their own tournaments. How are these tournaments different from a WCCC? Ok - the book is different - but is that all? To keep the sporting aspect, what we need is a way to point to a small number of tournaments and say "this is it - this is special and you should follow it". Author presence is a pretty good way to draw that line. Vas
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.