Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 13:26:04 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 06:12:39, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On May 05, 2002 at 19:58:09, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>What you need to consider is the number of years the programmer has spent >>actively working on his program. >> >>That gives much better figures. > >I agree 100%. Experience matters a lot. One of the important >things experience teaches is what not to do. > >You don't find the latter anywhere. > >>"Knowledge" in the sense of positional evaluation (that's what most people think >>about when they talk about knowledge) makes for 10% of the strength of a chess >>program. >> >>Chess is 90% about tactics (which is a concept close to "search"). >> >>Naturally there is also a good deal of chess "knowledge" in a good search, but >>it is really different from what most people generally consider to be >>"knowledge". > >These statements somewhat amaze me. I would have thought the most important >thing for a chess engine (given an already decent search) is to have a good >positional evaluation. Peter Frey, in his book "Chess Skill in Man and Machine," says that some experts think that a chess program with sophisticated search algorithms and little chess knowledge might approach master level. w.b.r. Otello > >Not good in terms of quantity, but good in the terms of being seldom wrong >by a large amount. > >I think my engine lose most games because of severe misevaluations. But I >don't think I have an exceptionally good search. > >-- >GCP
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.