Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:37:24 06/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 2000 at 18:57:57, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On June 27, 2000 at 19:31:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 27, 2000 at 18:13:26, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>Tricky issue is to use the "understanding" word for this kind of problems. Some >>>tends at once to think of it as something with a human-like kind of >>>understanding and from then on they say not just one program understand a shit. >>>But as far my knowledge and experience of CSTAl tell me, this program really >>>"understand" in the sense it has code lines to tackle these kinds of situations. >>>That is, in hardware or software realm, understanding. >>>Fernando >> >> >>Maybe... but since it loses those same kinds of positions more often than >>it wins them, at least watching it play on ICC, it appears (to me) to simply >>be 'speculative'. 'Speculative' is only good if it wins... > >Hi Bob: >Well, you have introduced in the debate an even more trickier word, >"speculative". But what is more, I do not see what you are aiming to. I have >some good positional understanding or at least an human kind of positional >understanding, good or bad you will agree that it is human and nevertheless I >lose many games; then, because of that, it is the case my knowledge or >understanding becomes "speculative"? >The point of the score probes nothing except in the extreme case you lose all >the time, in all positions. One thing is to understand in the sense you use some >rules to tackle an issue, other things is if that rules are good enough. Now I >understand that for speculative tyou mean that a program -or a human- simply >launch an atack just to see what happens but weithout understanding the >position. Well, that could be the case, but it is not more than an speculation. >And what happens, besides, with speculative attacks that has an element of >chance BUT are based in some kind of understanding of the position? You would >say that the famous Andersen game againts K. was just speculative -because so >has been probed later- and then without understanding? >Fernando I'm not talking about "human speculation" because I do that all the time when I play chess. I am talking about a program that tries to emulate this speculative approach to playing chess.. without any real hope of doing so. In such cases, speculation wins an occasional brilliant game. And it also goes down in flames in most of the others...
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.