Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:19:10 02/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 1999 at 21:43:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >On February 26, 1999 at 13:43:08, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On February 26, 1999 at 13:16:01, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On February 26, 1999 at 08:44:12, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 26, 1999 at 01:35:04, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>>Posted by Vincent Diepeveen on February 25, 1999 at 21:10:49: >>>> >>>>>>>I always use the default auto232 setting "/m100". In your case (using /m60) >>>>>>>the error rate is of course very high as there will be many games terminated >>>>>>>with scores like +1.xx or -2.xx. And then what? It's not always clear to judge >>>>>>>such games. Better use "/m100" IMO as it pays off in the end. >>>> >>>>>>Easy to judge for me. don't forget i have over 1000 rating points more >>>>>>than you. So /m60 is well enough. >>>> >>>>>That's a non valid point in the first place. Terminating games after 60 moves >>>>>having a score like -1.xx in comp-comp is meaningless as anything still can >>>>>happen. >>>> >>>>>Secondly, I did not know your rating was over 3200. >>>> >>>>As competition leader i have the bad habit to be busy a lot with >>>>ratings and such: >>>> >>>>Dutch national list. Everyone that plays national competition, yes >>>>even someone playing regional competition nowadays is in the national >>>>rating list. Also people that play tournaments are in the list anyway. >>>>Further a rating doesn't get away. Someone being a member of the >>>>dutch computer chess club, also is automatically member of the >>>>dutch national chess association, and if he plays somewhere he has >>>>a rating therefore. >>>> >>>>Here the programmers i could find: >>>> >>>>Walter Ravenek (arthur) 1997 >>>>Bart Weststrate (kallisto) 1863 >>>>Frans Morsch (quest) - >>>>Ed Schroder (rebel) - (ed is not at the list for sure) >>>>Vincent Diepeveen (diep) 2234 >>>>Johan de Koning (the king) - >>>>Marcel v. Kervinck (rookie) - >>>>Alex v Tiggelen (alexs) 1335 >>>>Joos Buijs (nightmare now alexs) 1932 >>>>Peter Kouwenhoven (dappet) - >>>>Gijsbert Wiesenekker (zzzzzz) 1961 (has also contributed to crafty) >>>>Tom Vijlbrief (ant) - (can lucky make moves on the board now, >>>> after seeing his program print out the >>>> move) >>>>Aske Plaat (cilk) - >>>>bugchess team members ???? >>>>jan louwman (operates nimzo) - >>>>Fre Felkers (delta) - >>>>morphy programmer ???? >>> >>> >>>It is clear to me since several years that being a good chess player is a >>>serious handicap for anybody trying to write a top level chess program. >> >>I do not see a logical reason why being a good chess player is a serious >>handicap. >> >>I think that most of the good chess players did not try to write a program. >> >>Uri > >Maybe I should say: not being a good chess player is a good thing when you want >to write a good chess program. > >I'm not sure you will agree on this anyway. Indeed i don't either. In first instance one needs to be a programmer. After you have a strong program, then suddenly being a strong chessplayer is a big help to improve its positional level. >I notice that strong chess players who tried to write a good chess program did >not succeed. I notice that there are weak chess players able to write the very >best chess programs. > >From a statistical point of view it means nothing, as you can argue that there >are very few good chess players that tried to write a chess program, and many >programmers are anyway weak chess players. > >But I notice that when I tried to include a lot of chess knowledge in my program >I was not successful. When I removed all the stuffs and tried to keep only the >very basic knowledge my program began to get stronger. > >Hard to explain everything in a few lines, but I can give some examples of human >chess knowledge that, IMO, is useless for a chess program: > * forks > * pins > * tempi >Don't you think a good player would try very hard to implement these concepts in >the first place? And I can tell you that he would loose his time... > >Or maybe, surprisingly, there is NO relation between "being a strong chess >player" and "being the programmer of a strong chess program". I mean that being >strong at chess gives you no special advantage when you write your chess >program. > >Maybe it is easier too agree on this... > > > Christophe
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.