Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:12:01 07/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2002 at 22:56:37, Russell Reagan wrote: >On July 17, 2002 at 20:02:33, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I think that in order to teach a computer to understand something you need first >>to define it. >> >>You do not give a definition why it is good to castle but you expect programs >>to know the definition that you seem not to know. >> >>I think that you expect too much. >>Programmers have problems to explain to computers without bugs things that they >>know to define and you expect them to explain to computers things that they even >>do not know. >> >>Uri > >Let me make sure I understand you. You are saying that to use the common method >of piece tables and other penalties and bonuses it doesn't require the >programmer to have to understand a great deal about chess. To use the other >approach, you would have to have extensive chess knowledge yourself, right? I >think that is fair, and it certainly would be more difficult to use the harder >method, but I think that we should strive for that and not just settle for >something because it is the easiest. > >Russell take your last line and do this: :s/easiest/doable/ and you will be correct. We do what is "doable". Because we can't do anything else.
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.