Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 13:36:09 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2002 at 19:58:01, José Carlos wrote: >On May 05, 2002 at 19:25:07, stuart taylor wrote: > >>I mean, where are we? I cannot make it out yet. >>Can we safely say that a top program of today can beat all programs from before >>1996, i.e. 1995 and below? Which program, and if so, can we say that it is due >>to true chess understanding and correctness, or just due to greater power to >>calculate all the tactics? And even THAT maybe not, because even that might only >>be due to seeing the extra ply or so. >> But what about true chess knowledge? I mean long-term planning, and playing for >>minute advantages etc? >> Can any prgram of today beat all programs until a certain year, due to that >>knowledgs alone? >> >>I feel that if a 1995 program can beat a top program of today in even one game, >>that means that there are aspects which that older program knows better than the >>new one, or why else would it win? >>S.Taylor > > "Understanding" belongs to humans... at least now. Understanding is a >difficult to define term, but IMO it implies synthesis and analysis >capabilities. Computers are great analysts, but they are not able to synthesize, >this is, going from concrete it to the abstract. For example, you can see a >position and then get a _similar_ position in one of your games; then, you are >able to recognize the similarities and apply the same plan. That is called >inductive inference, and computers are still far from being able to do that >themselves. > > José C. Inductive inference is the oldest branch of computational learning theory but is still evolving quite actively. w.b.r. Otello
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.