Author: Kim Hvarre
Date: 15:31:39 12/26/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 26, 1997 at 17:47:14, Chris Whittington wrote: > >I want to defend Mchess. > >Because, in these arguments over the past few days, I'm reminded of >Stalin's dictum from the 1930's. He said that *intentions* were >irrelevent. If the *result* of your actions were counter-revolutionary, >then you were a counter-revolutionary - and should therefore be shot. No >matter that you were trying to fulfill the plan if you made a mistake >and failed - you were to be shot. Speaking about relevans or intentions ;) >Now Mchess has a learning feature - it tries an opening; if it comes out >of the line with a minus, it remembers and tries another move later. if >it comes out plus, it remembers and extends the book. This way it builds >a book where 'bad' theory gets rejected; and a new Mchess idea gets >tried. If the 'new' idea works, it becomes part of the book, Hence the >later computer games of mchess where it plays as per some Gm or Im game >up to move 38, amd then there's another move, never seen before, or >other move series never seen before. So Mchess extends chess knowledge >via autoplayer games. They then release with the new book; and the ng's >start to skweak. But is it really this, that's the case with MCP7, mainly/only a matter of booklearning, I doubt? >The *effect* is counter-revolutionary, while the *intent* was greater >knowledge. > >You guys argue to shoot Sandro Nechi. Instead you should be applauding >him. Depends of ones evaluation relative "the Stalin dictum"? >Chris Whittington kim
This page took 0.01 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.