Author: walter irvin
Date: 17:06:09 07/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2000 at 03:55:24, Ed Schröder wrote: >On July 12, 2000 at 02:31:05, blass uri wrote: > >>On July 12, 2000 at 01:13:21, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>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). >> >>I do not think that the deeper depth is defined. >>Programs use different extensions rules and different pruning rules. > >I was speaking in general. In general this is a rule of thumb (ever been >since day one of computer chess). > > >>> In human-comp playing style, strategic understanding, and >>>having the initiative are the main items and that ply-depth comes after that. >> >>programs can see strategic good moves by deeper ply-depth. > >Of course. Only that the order is different. To be more precise: > >COMP-COMP: >1) depth (60%) >2) playing style (20%) >3) initiative (15%) >4) strategic (5%) > >HUMAN-COMP >1) playing style (30%) >2) initiative (25%) >3) strategic (25%) >4) ply-depth (20%) > >Now you can argue about the given percentages but for me this picture >is true. IMO. For instance in comp-comp it does not matter that both >programs do not understand a strategic position, they both fail. In >human-comp it is a matter of life or dead (winning or losing). > >Ed i think chess is chess if you are better you SHOULD win .mostly depth will not save you when you are in lost position .the key is in the opening vs human .vs human the computer needs a WIDE OPEN game with lots of complex tactical lines . also learning must be improved .can anyone tell me why a program should ever have to rethink a position it has already played in another game with the result being known ????????plus it may spend 2 min or more and play the same move it played 2 games back .i think everyone is snake facinated by speed and are neglecting the computers other main power MEMORY .> > >>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.