Author: blass uri
Date: 00:56:51 06/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2000 at 03:33:59, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On June 13, 2000 at 20:21:25, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>This is completely and in all ways irrelevant. The *EXACT SAME THING* is true >>with the data used by the evaluation function. And the endgame database files >>are written (generally speaking) by pure programmer types and so are the least >>"chess genius" part of the system and (ironically) the only part that is >>perfect! > >You are more than welcome to pretend that everything is pure data. And from a >narrow point of view it probably is. But if you're unable to distinguish between >different types of data, then as a non-programmer I can't explain it to you. > >>You don't understand how programs work very well. A program operates on data. >>Without those "additons and attachments" there is no program. Period. The >>opening book data is *not different* than the eval data or the endgame data or >>any other data. > >Yes, it is. > >>So, the algorithms are not from the author. The data is not from the author. >>What (exactly) does the author contribute? It is more or less a general >>knowledge of how to merge data with algorithms and tune such a system for >>performance. > >We can't disagree on this, even if I try. > >>We may as well disqualify the algorithms if you insist that the information must >>"come from the programmer only." > >No, that's not my position or my problem. If you want it in data terms it's >something like this: Why should a chess program be forced to use data it's >constructed to produce. A chess program is supposed to calculate a certain value > (the best) using an evaluation function. This value is then, I guess, >associated with the relocation of a certain object (a piece) on a particular >square through some kind of move generator. This is probably far from the actual >event, but in principle it really doesn't matter. The use of an opening book (or >endgame tables) is essentially an atttempt to bypass the purpose of the program. By this logic my idea to have big arrays to define unstoppable passed pawns in pawns endgame is also an attempt to bypass the purpose of the program. Knowing that a black king in a1 cannot stop the white passed pawn at h4 by an array that tells you by the square of the king and the pawn if the pawn is unstoppable may be also considered as an attempt to bypass the purpose of the program because the program remember it and does not calculate it(I assume that the calculations to find the array were done before the program started to play). I do not see a reason that having an array of 64*64 is right and having a big array that is called tablebases is wrong. Uri
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.