Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 18:10:36 02/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2000 at 19:09:25, KarinsDad wrote: >On February 21, 2000 at 14:04:12, Christophe Theron wrote: > >[snip] >> >>I think a strong chess player can be a very important part of a programming >>team, but I don't think a strong chess player can be the main programmer of a >>top chess program. >> >> >> >> Christophe > >I think it is more fundamental than that. > >Strong (and by strong I mean IM+) level players spend a LOT of time on their >chess. This would give them little time to program. > >A strong program (in most current models) requires a lot of elements: opening >book, hash table, egtbs, pawn hashes, etc., etc., etc. > >It takes a lot of time to design and implement these well. Additionally, a good >design idea could turn out to be a poor implementation idea (i.e. it sounds good >on the surface, but it don't work). This means that even a strong programmer >will be going back to the drawing board on occasion (which takes even more >time). > >So, while I think you are correct in a general manner, I think the real issue is >that there are not a lot of strong players who are also strong programmers and >who are also motivated to write a chess program. > >I think the motivation for strong chess players/programmers is to play the game >whereas for the weaker chess players/programmers, they lose enough over the >board to want to try to write a program. > >I think this applies to some correspondence players as well. They are fair OTB, >but when they have the time to really think about a position, they are much much >stronger as correspondence players, hence, they are motivated (due to standard >risk/reward) to play correspondence chess. > >Another way of saying this may be that there are about 8 or 10 REALLY strong >programs out there. The difference Elo-wise between them is not that great. But, >there have been hundreds of programs written. Why is it that the Elo difference >between the hundreds of programs is so much greater? It's due to the large >amount of effort required to gain that little bit more once you get a reasonable >program working. Some people are motivated to continue improving their programs >(working on them every day) and some people may only improve them once in a >while (or never). > >A strong chess player would most likely get bored with his/her program once it >was basically working ok. To spend 2 more man years on it over the rest of a >strong chess player's life is probably beyond the self motivational capabilites >of those people. They would rather be playing chess. > >KarinsDad :) That sounds sensible. I guess the reason why strong chess players are not good candidate to write good chess programs is a little bit of the two: * lack of real strong motivation * risk to stick with unadapted prejudices about the game 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.