Strongest Chess Engine

[nczempin]

No, I'm not joking, I'll give you proof that ∞ - ∞ = 0. However, that only is true if we give some meaning to those ∞'s, and when we use different sized infinites.

The process you quote (by Cantor) can be used to show that those sets have the same "infiniteness" but not that the difference is zero especially when the infinity symbol does not necessarily mean what you mean in the example. You can try comparing different cardinalities to spice things up, for example the set of real numbers fully contains the set of rational numbers and both are infinite.
I may be wrong of course, it's been at least 20 years since those math lessons!

And perhaps Ulysses should take a look at Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel

[Edsel Apostol]

Dividing by the age is simply an artificial measurement that shows nothing I can imagine about the ability of the programmer.

It shows me something. Though my logic may be flawed, I would say that it makes a big difference.

Let's say for example:
a.) we have a 2700 program by a 25 years old that was being developed only for two years.
b.) we have a 2700 program by a 50 year old that was being developed for 27 years.

Which do you think is the better programmer?

Though my ratio is simple (that was only meant for fun), it can't be easily put down as an obscure idea.

I should have added the duration of time the program was being developed as it is what I'm trying to point out. Maybe I have not stated it clearly in my previous posts.

Edsel Apostol

[Tony Thomas]

Dividing by the age is simply an artificial measurement that shows nothing I can imagine about the ability of the programmer.

It shows me something. Though my logic may be flawed, I would say that it makes a big difference.

Let's say for example:
a.) we have a 2700 program by a 25 years old that was being developed only for two years.
b.) we have a 2700 program by a 50 year old that was being developed for 27 years.

Which do you think is the better programmer?

Though my ratio is simple (that was only meant for fun), it can't be easily put down as an obscure idea.

I should have added the duration of time the program was being developed as it is what I'm trying to point out. Maybe I have not stated it clearly in my previous posts.

Edsel Apostol

It doesnt show anything to conclude that a) is a better programmer because A) probably used many of the algorithms developed by B) because B) has an open source program. At the time B) started programming there werent any open source program let alone most of the current GUI's, so concentrating only on the engine development was hard. It is possible for another person C) age 18, to come around and use inspiration from both of you and write a rather buggy 2800 elo program, but he will most likely be put down as a cloner.

[Edsel Apostol]

That's cool Zach.

I will be studying your code when it will be released.

Is there a support for SMP there?

[Edsel Apostol]

What I'm trying to point out with this post is to show that the young programmers are having an easy time making their programs stronger. Maybe it was the influence of very strong open-source programs like Fruit, Glaurung, Scorpio.

Unlike the old programmers that have difficulty making their program stronger because they can't let go of the learnings they have before that are obsolete nowadays.

Hi Tony,

In the simple case I have mentioned in my previous post, one can see that programmer a) is the better one, but in the scenario you have posted, one can't conclude indeed of which of the two programmer is better.

If we are going to follow your scenario, I have tackled that issue in my previous post quoted above.

Edsel Apostol

[Uri Blass]

Dividing by the age is simply an artificial measurement that shows nothing I can imagine about the ability of the programmer.

It shows me something. Though my logic may be flawed, I would say that it makes a big difference.

Let's say for example:
a.) we have a 2700 program by a 25 years old that was being developed only for two years.
b.) we have a 2700 program by a 50 year old that was being developed for 27 years.

Which do you think is the better programmer?

Though my ratio is simple (that was only meant for fun), it can't be easily put down as an obscure idea.

I should have added the duration of time the program was being developed as it is what I'm trying to point out. Maybe I have not stated it clearly in my previous posts.

Edsel Apostol

b has clearly more experience in programming than a so b may be the better programmer.

The fact that the program of b is not stronger mean nothing because it is not clear if the target of b was to write a better program.

There are many other possible targets like writing the best chess program in visual basic or writing the best program with size smaller than 20 kbytes.

Uri

[Edsel Apostol]

b has clearly more experience in programming than a so b may be the better programmer.

Experience may not mean better.

It doesn't matter if you are programming for 30 years if your projects are only simple and small. Even a two years experience in programming hard and enormous projects would surely beat that.

I am not saying that it is always the case. What I am trying to say is that experience depends on quality.

Quality over quantity.

The fact that the program of b is not stronger mean nothing because it is not clear if the target of b was to write a better program.

There are many other possible targets like writing the best chess program in visual basic or writing the best program with size smaller than 20 kbytes.

Uri

If the intention of the programmer is other than making the strongest program then maybe you are correct. In general, programmers tend to create the strongest program.

Edsel

[Michael Sherwin]

Dividing by the age is simply an artificial measurement that shows nothing I can imagine about the ability of the programmer.

It shows me something. Though my logic may be flawed, I would say that it makes a big difference.

Let's say for example:
a.) we have a 2700 program by a 25 years old that was being developed only for two years.
b.) we have a 2700 program by a 50 year old that was being developed for 27 years.

Which do you think is the better programmer?

Though my ratio is simple (that was only meant for fun), it can't be easily put down as an obscure idea.

I should have added the duration of time the program was being developed as it is what I'm trying to point out. Maybe I have not stated it clearly in my previous posts.

Edsel Apostol

b has clearly more experience in programming than a so b may be the better programmer.

The fact that the program of b is not stronger mean nothing because it is not clear if the target of b was to write a better program.

There are many other possible targets like writing the best chess program in visual basic or writing the best program with size smaller than 20 kbytes.

Uri

I agree 100% with the 'target' reasoning. I am 50 and I am working very hard to improve Romi's ELO, however, sofar this has been done while preserving and enhancing Romi's risky, enjoyable playing style. I have had FIDE rated masters tell me that they really like RomiChess because they enjoy playing RomiChess. They also stated that the strong commercial programs play 'uninspired' chess, just grinding them down untill they make a mistake, at wich time they loose. Romi they say takes chances that make them feel as though they have winning chances in almost every game that they play, even if they endup loosing almost every game anyway.

For my 'target', I think that I am doing very well for being 50 and for being a self taught programmer!

I am trying to improve the ELO of my program, but I am not in an 'ELO race' with anyone!

[Zach Wegner]

Is there a support for SMP there?

There's DTS support.

[Ovyron]

Ok, I think nczempin has proved me wrong, and I consider myself as failed.

The process you quote (by Cantor)

Well, I didn't quote anything, that's how I imagined what working with different infinites would be like , now I know that facts beat imagination...