Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 13:09:48 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2000 at 15:05:58, KarinsDad wrote: >Why? A human does not want to look up answers in a book during OTB. A human does >not want more options when playing chess. Why not just restrict the computers >and make the rules simple? That was my point as well. Why increase the amount of clutter, when it should be the other way around. >Not so. In fact, teaching programs to think like humans may be the next >evolutionary step in computer chess programming. Why would you of all people >want to put down that idea? That's my point in all its entirety. I'm not a programmer, but I just stated what I thought would a good (and scientific) approach to making better chess programs. If you don't continue pursuing new ideas, wrong or right, then you don't develop anything worthwhile. >To some degree. But I have observed that you are not open minded at all when it >comes to computer chess. Anything that restricts a programmer or program is bad >from your point of view (correct me if I am wrong, but that is my impression). > >Your entire goal seems to be to acquire "semi-perfect" games. You do realize of >course that perfect games are currently an unattainable goal. Why would anyone >want to play a computer and lose at the point that computers play nearly perfect >games every time? Programmers are effectively coding themselves out of a job. If >they want this "hobby" to continue, they may be forced to come up with >alternatives, maybe to the rules, maybe to how they code, who knows? That's why I didn't bother replying. It's a discussion about two separate issues on the surface, but they're very closely related. If you don't try another approach, how would you know what is stronger or better. >Rather, the idea is for a computer to acquire the knowledge via calculation as >opposed to table lookup. In this manner, a computer could still "make a >mistake". As it is (with regard to egtbs), as long as an egtb was generated >correctly, there is effectively no chance of mistake by the computer (unless it >has a bug). Additionally, the time lag once within a tablebase is virtually >non-existant. I think it would be a fantastic scientific achievement if a computer chess program was capable of good (GM level) opening-, middle- and endgameplay only with the aid of calculation. Thank you Karin's dad :o). I assume that you share some of my thoughts, and I appreciate that you've decided to put it on print. 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.