Author: martin fierz
Date: 09:18:16 01/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2004 at 12:10:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... AFAIK the word "computer" referred to an office clerk doing mindless computations long before that thing known to us as a computer was known. but i'm not too sure about that... >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. :) ok, but that is something that is in crafty. in principle you *could* search to depth 1 and not have to do minimax. of course you're right that shannon was the first to formulate his famous search strategies and minimax, but i remain unconvinced about "computer chess" as a whole. we'll need an english language expert to track down the origin of the word computer ;-) 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.