Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 22:13:21 07/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2000 at 23:39:47, Christophe Theron wrote: >On July 10, 2000 at 18:55:11, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On July 10, 2000 at 14:56:31, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On July 10, 2000 at 14:15:39, Terry Ripple wrote: >>> >>>>I know Hiarcs7.32 is one of the most knowledge based programs, but what about >>>>the famous Shredder4, Rebel Century and Junior6? Where do they average on >>>>knowledge in comparison? >>>> >>>>Best regards, >>>>terry >>> >>> >>>For me the answer is easy. I know others will disagree... >>> >>>The program that knows the most about chess, and has the most relevant >>>knowledge, is the one that stands the highest in the rating lists. >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I don't think this is a very good definition, although nobody ever defines it >>when they ask which program has the most. I think that what people mean when >>they say "knowledge" is that a program with more knowledge plays more like a >>strong human and less like a typical computer, since everyone would agree that a >>GM human typifies "knowledge". >> >>People want "knowledge" in a program because they think they can learn from >>seeing it expressed. They want knowledge because they want to ask questions of >>something knowledgeable and get answers. >> >>This has little to do with which robot whacks the other robots. Computers can >>play chess in a vacuum, if desired. It's an interesting thing to do, and lots >>of people are interested in doing it. But other people are interested in >>interacting with the program themselves. >> >>bruce > > > >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? > > > > Christophe I think that comp-comp is about ply-depth (the program with the deeper depth generally wins). In human-comp playing style, strategic understanding, and having the initiative are the main items and that ply-depth comes after that. Ed
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.