Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:23:33 12/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2002 at 09:37:21, Ingo Lindam wrote: >On December 09, 2002 at 09:08:28, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>Suppose one wished to verify that a chess engine were able to correctly evaluate >>positions in which some positional advantage(s), such as space advantage, were >>dominant. >> >>Presumably, this would require not one test position but a suite of test >>positions. >> >>Suppose a suite of test positions, each of which contained the positional >>features of interest, were used. Suppose also that the engine came up with the >>right answer for each and every position. >> >>Would it really matter why the engine came up with all the right answers? >> >>Maybe it came up with all of its answers "for all the wrong reasons." >> >>But if the engine solves every positional test position that the humans can >>throw at it, wouldn't it be safe to say the engine can play positional chess? >> >>Bob D. > >Dear Bob, > >as in any philosophical dispute it is difficult to find the one and only truth >making all philosophers being happy with it. > >You supposed a lot things and I am affraid we will never see all of those >supposed things happen at the same time/experiment. > >But just let it suppose... > >you have an incredible large number of test positions... >the engine gives the 'supposed to be best move' in any of these positions... >and all/a lot of this best moves are given by the wrong reason... > >so I would believe that the 'wrong reason' is that the engine is just knowing >the position and/or the best move (the solution) in advance... >But I guess you will ask me to suppose that this is not the case... > >so I would suppose that the 'wrong reasons' making the engine give us all this >solutions for are just the BETTER reasons than mine or the one I suppose to be >the one and only right reason, BUT ofcourse you will again ask me to suppose >that this is not the case... >(I am just beginning to believe that this stuff is not bad for writing a ballad >about) > >so the unimaginable stupid engine completely nothing knowing about the right >reasons and completely nothing knowing about the solutions of the test positions >in advance... is giving the one and only best move in any case in any position >you give to it?? > >Than this engine is... and I am absolutely sure... NO chess engine...but just a >magic wand... > >...but that isn't bad either! :-) > >And ofcourse it is a magic wand having absolutely incredible tremendous good >(just not to say perfect, although ofcourse I mean perfect) positional chess >playing skills!! > >Internette Gruesse, >Ingo Yes, of course you are right. Thanks for the very amusing scenario. You have made my day! It is wonderful to see a great sense of humor here at CCC!!!!!!!! I guess a "magic wand" is like the "Holy Grail" of chess engines. : ) Bob D.
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.