Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: more examples for search-based stupidity

Author: Mark Young

Date: 19:46:57 06/13/98

Go up one level in this thread


On June 13, 1998 at 22:00:22, Hristo wrote:

>Mark, he(mister Thorsten) has a point !!!
>You have to admit that.
>There is tactics and there is positional understanding!
>How much of each is needed to make a strong player is another story.
>There is similar question in physics. Is the electron a particle or a
>wave ?!
>Father and a son have received Nobel prizes for proving that the
>electron is a particle and that it is a wave.
>I do beleive that every position contains enough information to
>determine the correct move. We just don't know(yet) how to find out
>where is this information stored!

We do know where the information is stored. And its called SEARCH!

>Can you name one program(or computer) that can predict(calculate) every
>possible move from the very beginig of the game unitl the very last move

yes given the time, most programs can, if they don't have a ply cut off
point that is to low. :)

>If you can not, then all these programs at some point must use some sort
>of artificial evaluation of the position not based on tactics.
>
You need to read the posts again. You are not understanding what we are
talking about. The question is can todays programs get positional
understanding from a deep search. Or do you have to bog down the search
with "artificial evaluations"
for the program to play good chess.(example CST 5 Knps vs Fritz 5 300
Knps)

Now here is my question, Which program plays better chess, CST or Fritz
5?

>
>Best regards.
>Hristo



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.