Author: Robin Smith
Date: 21:41:18 07/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2005 at 23:49:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 18, 2005 at 23:28:08, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>On July 18, 2005 at 19:42:58, William Sorin wrote: >> >>>Any more sceptics left? >> >>I guess the surprise for me is that chess has turned out to be weighted much >>further toward combinatorics than pattern recognition. So...search depth becomes >>overwhelmingly important in engine strength. >> >>I'm kind of looking for a game where pattern recognition is more important now. >>Not sure what that would be. > >Go Yes, go is a great game and a great answer. Even relatively weak humans still trounce computers at go. Another answer might be backgammon. The top backgammon programs are stronger than all but the very strongest humans, with whom they are about on par; but due to backgammon's element of chance, brute force calculation does not work. Backgammon programs use neural nets. -Robin
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.