Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 04:10:25 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 16:42:16, Mike S. wrote: >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 My idea of computer chess is to improve the chess knowledge of programs. Of course computers have their own methods. But to look into a given database and look, which move is the best, can't IMO be the right thing. Maybe sometimes, we will have analysed all endgame with 8 pieces. Someone makes a database with all positions. And you give a programm access to this database. Makes this the program play better chess? Is this fair in a game between a human and a computer? Enrique Irazoqui said: "Mass storage is a part of computers" (or something like that). So you can store the whole chess knowledge, that has been achieved somewhere, on one computer. And the program has these possibilities, and a human doesn't have access to these data? Because mass storage belongs to computers, books don't belong to humans? IMO, that's senseless. Greetings, Martin Schubert
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.