Author: leonid
Date: 19:44:35 11/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 1999 at 21:01:22, KarinsDad wrote: >On November 19, 1999 at 17:31:36, leonid wrote: > >>On November 19, 1999 at 13:28:23, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >> >>>On November 19, 1999 at 00:15:36, Baldomero Garcia, Jr. wrote: >>> >>>>I was wondering how strong computer chess programmers are. >>>>On average, are they masters, experts, class A players or lower? >>>>Baldo. >>> >>>Hi brother, >>> I think that on average chess programmers are weak chess players, but there are >>>some exceptions. Do not worry, you can beat 90% of them at any time control. >>>Chuy. >> >>Well said!!! Important for chess programmers is to be good in programming, not >>that much in chess playing. All wonder stories about the chess programmer that >>was able to write so good game because of his superious understanding of the >>game strategy is nothing more and nothing less but fairy tales. >> >>Leonid. > >I do not agree. > >I think most chess programs are at the level they currently are due to an innate >ability of programmers to understand programming concepts, but not really >understand chess. > >Of course most any programmer can write a program to handle Alpha-Beta. And, >they can understand the concept of null move and implement it. > >However, when it comes down to determining if taking with the h pawn, doubling >the g pawn and opening the h file, OR, taking with the f pawn, doubling the g >pawn and opening the f file takes REAL chess knowledge. Most programmers would >probably follow the "take towards the center" motto and not really investigate >the differences. > >I have several books and videos on pawn structure which I have been studying. >And I have noticed that I do not really know squat about pawn structure concepts >in chess although I have been playing on and off for 30 years. > >KarinsDad :) Generally speaking, good chess player can become, in most cases, good programmers as well. Basic reason for this rely in our CPU (central processing unit). Speedier is this engin, better it will perform in chess, music, just everywhere. So, theoretically, the same man, once good in one thing, will be good in one hundred other places. Only our CPU is not all the time as good as of computer. It just can't run at once every imaginable program. It take the time to make one workable as it should. Impossibility of being everywhere in the same moment make it very probable that good programmer is not a good chess player all the time. In more clear words, it is not compulsory to be a good programmer and good chess player. I am not sure what it is all those "pawn structures". I never went that far. But my impression is that what you do now is nothing more that effort to overcome, by some artificial means, our medern computers weakness. Chess game, based on direct logic should see everything up to the end of the game. Even when the computer will become more rapid, in around 50 years from now, the biggest part of all those artifacts that we use now, to cover our computers weakness, should lost their importance for ever. If the data for starting the game is good only for the first 15 plys, once the computer will see all 16, this data can leave our game for ever. Once force of the computer will permit even more plys head seeing at the end of the game (and this is more that natural to expect) all the database for ending of game will also become superfluous. At that final moment chess game will start to be based, probably, only on the logic and nothing more. If this will happened (and this should be so one day)the old theory saying that good chess programmer should know that much about the "pawns structures", will vanish from our memory like it was never there. With my respect, Leonid.
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.