Author: Don Dailey
Date: 21:15:59 02/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
Well said Fernando, I don't think it's possible to separate the two concepts. Search IS knowledge (one form of it.) I think we tend to artificially separate the two concepts which is probably a mistake. It's similar to chess players arguing over tactical vs positional play. It's more a human concept than anything else. I fear we do subject our programs to our own superstitions but cannot help ourselves. I'm sick of the knowledge vs fast search discussions too. Certain ones feel strongly inclined to judge each program based on this criteria. I have no problem with categorizing programs by their playing style, this one is tactical, that one plays boring but wins, the other one plays exciting chess etc. But the program that wins, is the one that has the most (and most relevant) knowledge of how to play chess. I think us humans confuse style and beauty with knowledge too. If we see a pretty win we are much more impressed than we would be if we see an efficient but ugly (in the human sense) win. This is probably why computers will soon best us at chess, they are free to play good chess, while we are trying to be stylish. - Don On February 24, 1998 at 22:29:46, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi all after my long vacations: >This F5 rating has arisen once again the old, somewhat absurd discusion >about knowledgeable Vs fast searchers programs. I say absurd because, >as ever, discusion is going on as if "knowledge" as such was already a >defined, decided and unquestionable thing. But is not. If for knowledge >we call the somewhat unorganized sum of practical chess signals human >experience has got trought centuries of playing the game, OK, but then >remember that after centuries of common sense and experience people was >certain the Earth was a flat surface. That seemed undisputable >knowledege to date. Before and elsewhere, other thought the world was >supported by a number of elephants, the elephants by turtles and the >turtles...well, as they said, don't bother with silly question. If you >take a look at almost any specifi bit of chess "knowledge", you will see >that does not amount to much more than to a general, umprecise statement >based in a determinate amount of specific, local, narrow experience, and >that's the reason real games offer at each moment - more often that >presumed- clear signs of exceptions. What kind of "knowldege" is that >that can be refuted once in two or three tries? Take a llok at any >theroic book and you will see that at each step. "Yes, knights are good >here, but then"... At leat defenders of knowledge approach should do >something better than to trash "fast stupid searchers" and give us a >more detailed and deep analysis of what is that knowledge they defend so >much. Have they a more specific slice of principles we don't know yet >and that are the "truly knowledge"?. My impression is: a lot of it is >trash itself and that`s the reason a fast progran not too much loaded >with knowledge can give a very good perfomance. Another impression: for >the kind of searching abilities computer have, knowledge probably means >or should mean something very different to our clumsy road signals. >Fernando
This page took 0.01 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.