Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:49:33 06/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 1998 at 22:35:54, Hristo wrote: >Hello Don! > >>... Since I consider myself to be a scientist I will always >>collect facts and definitions and work within them. ... > >What is the power of prediction that the total TACTICS method gives you >?! >It's not that good, is it !? If you are a scientist how can you stand, >so firmly, behind a method which has such low level of "prediction" ... >the current state of the chess programs has very little scientific >value(for chess it self). It has much more comercial value !!! >"My" program is stronger than "his" hence I know better !!! Bull ... >nobody knows! Lets look at the facts, not with a microscope but with >some understanding to what these facts mean. The facts point out that >even if you manage to search 200 000 000 position per second you are >still not even close to get to the bottom of the problem! Deal with this >fact for a change! > >Hristo then deal with this: If I can search 200,000,000 nodes per second, I am *one hell* of a lot closer to the "truth" about a position than a program that searches 5K nodes per second, no matter how you evaluate things. I won't be able to see to the end of the game, obviously, but I will see *every* hole in your evaluation, and I'll shove a stick in each one pain- fully. In chess, "rules of thumb" only take you so far. How many times is an isolated pawn weak? strong? immaterial? Ditto for kingside attacks that fail, or succeed, or don't do either... I'd rather go faster, and depend less on rules of thumb that I *know* are imperfect... than to bet the farm on vague concepts that work here, fail there, and guarantee me that I can't play with someone like Kasparov.
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.