Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 12:58:57 05/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 1998 at 13:09:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 10, 1998 at 11:29:33, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Dear Keith: >>First, let me give you my warmest thanks for your extended and detailed >>piece of information about your talk with Hsu. >>Second, let me tell you that I feel very well to know that my enthusiasm >>for CSTASL, showed here until the limit of fanatism, is shared by a guy >>like Hsu and, If I can say it, by you. >>Third, it also very flattering me to know that Hsu used a method of >>evaluation baed in second degree levels that is not far the method I >>proposed lot time ago to some programmers and in WCCR I think also, one >>that I called "modular", a method based in the simple fact that >>intelligent behaviour is not made out of an exhaustive calculation of >>factors put together in an specific moment, but a feedback provcess >>where in different moments different kind of progressive more detailed >>factor are taken into account on the gvround of previous calculations. > >Note that this is *not* a new idea... IE we had a three-level >evaluation >in Cray Blitz for many years... some simple independent factors to be >sure, >but many that depended on interactions... IE king safety was initially >defined as the pawn structure around the king, which was combined (non- >linearly) with the pieces that were close to the king, which was then >combined with the ability of other pieces to reach the king quickly. >Ditto >for weak pawns which depends not only on their being weak, but on their >mobility and ability to advance and exchange themselves away... > >most good evaluations have such terms... It's just that DB can do them >with no regard to computational consequences, while the rest of us have >to >decide what we can afford to do, and how we "make up" for what we can't >afford. There is *nothing* they can't afford to do. They simply have >to >want to do it. > Well Bob, this is then a new example that many times we take for inspiration what is no more than bad memory. And yes, if Hsu put in the market his creature, I think bad times could come for professional chess programmers. Regards fernando, this time learning a new lesson of humility. >>I >>remember I putted the example of a tennis player that does not try to >>calculate precisely the trayectory of the ball in the very moment the >>adversary strike it with the racker, but take a serie of decisions in a >>sucesions of moments; first, the general direction of the ball, right or >>left so I begin to run right or left; then , the altitude, low or high, >>etc, etc, until all this with corrections received from the very >>trayectory the ball is really taking, etc... Of course, not being myself >>a programmer, I never received about that the minimal commentary, not >>even to reject it. Neither I am saying "This" what Hsu did. It just >>enogh for me to suppoose than a vague intuition is not so far the real >>thing made out for the the best chess computer of the world. >>Finally, after all you have said I almost cannot wait the moment Mr Hsu >>will launch his product to the market, if if he does it at all. > >It will *definitely* change commercial computer chess if he does, of >course, >which may or may not be a good thing. Time will tell. The only >down-side is >that the WMCCC event will likely go the same way as the WCCC and ACM >events >have apparently gone. When someone dominates to a level that makes it >totally >impossible to compete, interest dies, although some of us would still >continue >to see what can be done with commodity microprocessors. But we'd get >killed >by "the big dog" of course... > >:)
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.