Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 10:52:33 06/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 1998 at 00:14:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 14, 1998 at 20:11:08, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Bob: >>With all the respect due to your intelligence and merits as a programmer >>not only in chess field, but in computer sciences as an all, even so >>your words about this issue remember me that paper that was writen by an >>european scientist to show how flight by machines heavier than air the >>week before of brothers Wright would flight. Have you read it? Is a >>wonderful example of reasoning, you can bet. Heavier than air machine? A >>thousand reasons were against that. >>Fernando > >There is a big difference between "the bumblebee can't fly" or "an iron >bird can't fly" and my position on search. You only have to check the >results of any computer chess event you care to choose, and notice >whether >the tournament was won by a "fast searcher" or a "knowledgable >human-like >selective algorithm." > >My comments aren't "theory".. they are *reality*... Dear Bob: Why you must limit the discusion to what actually slow programs do? Why you must assume that a different approach involves necesarily slowness? Why you identify my arguments in favour of different approach with a defense of CSTAL or whatever current program supposed to be knowledgeable? I believe that a superior kind of approach will make a program faster, not slower. Sure it is as much as human brains can compete with computers and nevertheless the hardware is thousand times slower. So, that involves that the heuristic the humans use, not based in analysing move by move, are far superior. I canm bet that you yoursefl will be one of the guys to create a superior, different kind of approach. Fernando
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.