Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 04:57:50 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2000 at 07:10:25, Martin Schubert wrote: >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 Do I have a supporter in the quest for the improvement of chess knowledge in chess programs? It appears to be the case. It's a really simple question. Do we want to develop something _resembling_ a chessplayer, or do we want to demonstrate the capabilities of computer hardware. Relying on mass storage and processor power for strength improvement suggests the latter. Sincerely, Mogens
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.