Author: Zheng Zhixian
Date: 07:12:56 07/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2005 at 00:41:18, Robin Smith wrote: >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 Weiqi >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. Actually I would think that the element of chance would favour computers seem they can calculate the odds perfectly.
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.