Author: Janos Keinrath
Date: 00:02:43 07/13/00
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 > > >>Uri Hi Ed! Could you give me a hint how can I tell for my program what is the initiative, or how can I measure it? Janos
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.