Author: Alvaro Polo
Date: 13:05:49 07/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2000 at 11:23:15, blass uri wrote: >On July 22, 2000 at 10:25:15, blass uri wrote: > >>On July 22, 2000 at 10:17:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 22, 2000 at 00:39:09, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On July 21, 2000 at 16:48:09, Randall Shane wrote: >>>><snipped> >>>>>Using the above statement to claim that Deep Blue had a simple evaluation >>>>>function is a clear misunderstanding of the paragraph's internal and external >>>>>context. From that statement, all that one can reasonably derive is that Deep >>>>>Blue has a simpler eval function than the human brain >>>> >>>>I think that commercial programs has more complicated evaluation function than >>>>the human brain. >>> >>>I hate to argue here, but this is _absolute_ nonsense. Chess programs are to >>>the human brain as an insect is to the human specie. Insects can do some >>>things better. They can carry more, in ratio to their body weight. They >>>can jump higher. But they are _not_ more knowledgeable about anything. >>> >>>I'm surprised anybody would even begin to suggest this. I'd be more than >>>happy to read any evaluation function you want and point out the places where >>>I have knowledge that it doesn't. But we are going to have to have a lot of >>>time to do this, because the gap is HUGE. >> >>There are many things that humans know and computers do not know but there are >>many things that computers know and humans do not know. >> >>Humans can forget about one weakness in their evaluation and computer cannot do >>it. >> >>I did not say that computer programs have better evaluation function but more >>complicated. >> >>If I have to calculate the evaluation of a chess program instead of using my >>brain then I will have to use a lot of time. >> >>Humans can see 1-3 nodes per second because they do not do a lot of calculations >>in their evaluation function. >> >>Uri >> >> >>Uri > >I can add that the difference in answers for the question which evaluation is is >more comlicated is the fact that I think about it as a human. > >Calculating the evaluation functions of computers is less simple than using my >regular evaluation functions. > >Some posters think about it from the point of view of computers. > >They think that the evaluation function of humans is more complicated because >teaching computers the evaluation function of humans is more complicated than >teaching them the evaluation function of commercial programs. > >Uri The complexity of a system is defined as the lenght of the description of the regularities of the system. The two systems are the program and the human brain. The programs evaluation is shorter to describe than the brains evaluation (where you would need to describe interactions between millions of neurons), hence the computer evaluation is simpler. Alvaro
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.