Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:55:28 10/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 29, 1999 at 20:39:00, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: > >>The spirit of discovery is wonderful, but to have each and every chess >>programmer reinvent the wheel is a billion times worse than having an >>explanation of the wheel and an explanation of the engine so that someone can >>come up with something better. If you don't know what is already there, the >>probability that you will come up with something better is vastly reduced. > >hmmm, >I can't think of a better example: >Right now what is happening is people who start programming do read and learn >from code that the only way to get into the air and fly is to use gas leighter >than air, and so we have dozens of balloons, one flying faster than the other >... >but doesn't this prevent anyone from inventing a plane? > >Maybe we are still missing something fundamental, and I want to keep hoping that >I'll discover it- and yes, I think maybe the chances are better when you write >your _very_ own program. > >Regards, >--Tec History has shown, over the years, that there are lots of 'basic' things that you are going to have to do. IE ie your example, do you first have to discover (all by yourself) how to invent gasoline? Do you have to then discover how to build an internal (or external) combustion engine to power your 'thing' whether it be a helicopter, an airplane, or something new? Chess is a non-trivial application. _everybody_ that starts off, follows the same trail everybody before them did, because the trail is obvious. And they spend a lot of effort before they ever reach the 'frontier' where they can then start to discover something 'new'. That is what science has _always_ been about... bootstrapping everyone to the frontier quickly so that all the effort is expended on expanding the frontier, not on discovering old ideas that others have already expended the effort on. That is the point... If you design a new automobile, you start with 4 wheels, because 100 years of history shows that 4 are more stable than 3, and that 5 or 6 doesn't offer anything significantly better. You also will discover that with todays engine technology, internal combustion engines are better than gas turbines, steam, etc. And that 4 cycle engines are more efficient than 2 cycle engines. Why discover all that _again_? It isn't really "discovery" the second time... just validation.
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.