Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:45:58 07/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2000 at 23:39:47, Christophe Theron wrote: [snip] >I did not say "computer rating lists" but just "rating lists". > >My definition is the most explicit and the closest to what a mathematical >definition could be that I have ever heard. > >Can you give a better definition yourself ? > >Who is going to argue that the program that has the best knowledge about chess >is the program that wins more games than the other ones ??? > >What other way of measurement are you thinking about ? > >If we were talking about humans, wouldn't you agree that the player who has the >best knowledge about chess is the one that wins more games? I don't agree. The player who has the most wisdom wins the most games. Let's separate human intellect into components: 1. IQ (Raw problem solving ability) 2. Knowledge (Storehouse of data) 3. Common Sense (Ability to get the big picture) 4. Wisdom (application of all of the above) There may be some additional components of importance, but those are all that spring to mind. We can make an anaology to chess programs easily. IQ would represent the fundamental algorithms and hardware. Knowledge would represent the evaluation parameters, opening database, endgame tablebase and other data. Common Sense would represent bug free operation (you don't suddenly poke your queen in front of an enemy pawn for no reason) and also correctness of the fundamental algorithms applied. Wisdom is the measure of all factors combined. You could have 100 times more knowledge than anyone else, but if your algorithm or CPU is 100x slower than your opponent, you will probably lose. You could have a huge storehouse of knowledge and a super-fast CPU running optimal algorithms, but bugs could render the move choices as nonsense.
This page took 0.01 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.