Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 07:10:04 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 08:40:12, Graham Laight wrote: >On July 18, 2000 at 18:17:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>We have several copies of Junior (and others) running on ICC, including more >>than one deep junior. I have seen GM players achieve these kinds of attacks >>in very fast games... Where the GM has little time to think and has to >>'intuit' everything. And intuit they do... >> >>There are many positions search won't solve. There are many positions that >>evaluation won't solve. There is room for both in a chess engine, and _both_ >>are important when playing players at the top level of chess... > >I don't think that this is proven. > >Programmers have historically found that they reap greater dividends with speed >than they do with knowledge, so they have mainly been going down the speed >route. There is a lot of truth in that. >However, if, instead of going down the speed route, the same amount of effort >and learning had gone into the knowledge route (e.g. learning how to build large >quantities of knowledge in a systematic and maintainable way), it may be that >knowledge based programs would now be just as strong as speed based programs. If speed (depth) wasn't such dominant we now would have had more intelligent programs searching 2-3 plies less deep. One might wonder which approach would be superior in hard elo. My guess is it is search. Ed >-g
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.