Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 12:51:02 06/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2000 at 14:48:34, Mogens Larsen wrote: >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 the learn file might as well be an opening book. What if I wrote a program that spit the learn data directly into its book. All of a sudden it shouldn't be allowed to use the book because books are bad? Now you're arguing for and against features based on what they're called, not what they do or how they are designed. As for "attaching" features, yes, the opening book is an attachment. But so is null move. Should programs not be allowed to use null move because it's an attachment? You can call the evaluation function an attachment for that matter. >>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 Of course the program can't refuse nor reflect upon stuff. It's a program, not a person. It's best not to confuse the two. -Tom
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.