Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:26:12 02/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 1999 at 22:06:09, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 26, 1999 at 21:43:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >[snip] >> >>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. >> >>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... >OTOH: > * Bad bishop > * Hanging piece > * Pawn roller >Will you write a good chess program if you don't understand these? >I also think that a pawn one square from promotion has a value of at least a >knight if it is guarded by a piece. That's because it will either tie up a >major piece or be promoted or have to be removed at the cost of a piece. > >The writing of the eval function seems to require a great deal of chess >knowlege. However, I think it could be created by a simple least squares fit >and millions of data points. I doubt if anyone has done this. > >>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... >I think the sample size is too small. If you find the following combination: >1. GM player >2. Has a degree in computer science >3. Has programmed in C, C++ or Assembly for at least ten years You forgot to add the most important ones 4. has been busy writing a chessknowledge for last x years. 5. has no other jobs or things to do that eat up all his/her time. In netherlands when i look to the KNSB (dutch national competition), then one looks too wide i think. Only Walter Ravenek and i qualify in netherlands, and walter has a busy job, so then only i qualify. There are some GMs here that have a degree in C.S., however GMs are fulltime pro's, so never will write a chessprogram, as they must chose: being GM, or being no GM and doing other things. So to find a GM writing software is kind of a joke, as being GM already swallows all time. IM is a different case. I can imagine guys being IM being able to produce a chessprogram. However i don't know a single dude that qualifies. >You will get a whale of a program if he decides to write one (also doubtful, >since there are probably a lot better ways to make money). The problem is (I >think) that you won't find any. All the time and effort it takes to be the best >in one area will subtract from the other. right. I had 2300FIDE when i entered M-class. I was killed for 2 years in an awfull way there. I think i can clearly blame making a chessprogram killed my playing level. It still does. Vincent
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.