Author: Dan Ellwein
Date: 10:17:09 10/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2000 at 03:49:52, Bruce Moreland wrote: >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 yes... it does seem to be a delicate balance between creating a program that's entertaining... and (hopefully) at the same time creating a little bit of perfection along the way...
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.