Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 00:49:52 10/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2000 at 01:00:07, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >So, Crafty is only "correct" or "accurate" in following its model game, while >Gambit Tiger is as "correct" or "accurate" in following its own model game. The >two are two different model games (somewhat similar, well, yes), and neither >model game is the full chess tree (not even close). And whichever one beats the >other more that one has better model of the game, the model overall closer to >the object it models. How I see it is that any program can be proven to have a particular strength against a particular class of opponent. If the goal is to maximize strength against that class of opponent, each change is either correct or incorrect. If the goal of Gambit Tiger is to increase strength against humans, that's one thing. If the goal of Gambit Tiger is to increase strength against computers, that is another thing. In either case, it can be proven whether playing like this works or does not work, in the general case. It is hard to prove whether a change is good or not. Arguing about whether playing like this worked in this case can be perceived as a battle in the general case war. But it isn't necessary to have the goal to increase strength against anything. It is possible to build a program whose purpose is to be fun. In which case, you look at the play and ask if it is fun. I don't know whether Gambit Tiger's play is provably strong, but it seems to be a lot of fun. That's good enough for me. And it's not an easy goal to meet, either. bruce
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.