Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:10:08 01/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2004 at 10:36:22, martin fierz wrote: >On January 12, 2004 at 09:53:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >[snip] > >>The problem is that Turing didn't do "computer chess". He did a hand >>simulation that was not based on minmax at all... There were a couple >>of mechanical chess players as well, one built by Shannon prior to 1949, >>as I have an early 1949 photo of him sitting by this machine. But that >>isn't "computer chess" either. > >hmm, define "computer chess" for me! > >i would say: turing computed chess moves => it was computer chess. I define "computer chess" as "using a computer to play the game of chess." While what Turing did was both important and interesting, it was not "computer chess" by any definition of "computer" I can think of... > >whether or not that was done with minimax, alpha-beta, or any other feasible way >wouldn't seem to matter to me. e.g. when you use crafty searching to 1 ply depth >without qsearch, you only have a "max" search, but it is still computer chess, >isn't it? No, because I can't do a "1-ply" search. Even with 1-ply I get to ply=2, call the static eval, and return the best of that number or the resulting capture search. :) > >of course, without minimax, i suppose you can't write a sensible computer chess >program. but nobody says it has to play well :-) You also need a "computer" of course... > >cheers > martin
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.