Author: Mike S.
Date: 13:42:16 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 05:58:49, Martin Schubert wrote: >On May 08, 2000 at 05:15:37, Frederic Friedel wrote: >(...) >>Huh? Of course they do. In fact they use highly advanced tablesbases, which may >>not be as comprehensive as Nalimov, but extend to more than five pieces. They >>are very cleverly compressed in patterns and heuristic examples. It's very >>unfair that computers don't have access to the knowledge bases these humans use. > >Okay. Then let's think about, what patterns the humans know and try to teach the >programms these patterns and heuristic examples. >That would be fair. I don't think so. Computer chess is about finding ways to have a program play the strongest chess possible, not about finding the best simulation of human thinking methods. Computers have their own methods, of which accessing EGTB's is one of them. The idea of understanding a computer chess system (with all of it's parts) as a chess player, seems to be beyond some. Therefore there's arguing about what is "forbidden" access of information during the game, referring both to opening and endgame data. But it's all inside the computer's case, like it's in the human's brain... Regards, M.Scheidl
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.