Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 11:48:34 06/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2000 at 14:19:31, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >That's just your opinion of "understanding." I think that computers understand >chess just fine. Yes, that's my opinion. I'm also of the belief that you're wrong. >But opening books are an inherent part of computer chess programming. Otherwise, >why does every program have one? I don't see the difference... Most opening books are not a result of programming (except when it comes to format, but obviously doesn't count) or output generated by the program itself, ie. learning files and games. Thereby it isn't an integrated part of a program, but an attachment. >But humans have teachers and read books. Surely programmers can teach their >programs...? The problem is that computer programs gets the answers without asking the question so to speak. Making mistakes and learning is an integrated part of a teaching process. Programmers don't teach anything, they offer something the program can't refuse nor reflect upon. They offer knowledge that has already been processed. I'm sorry if it's a little unclear, but I'm neither a programmer nor a grandmaster :o). Best wishes... Mogens
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.