Author: Jeroen Noomen
Date: 00:09:58 12/27/97
Go up one level in this thread
Dear Chris, I think you misunderstand what we wrote. Of course the learner-option is not the point, we were talking about cooked lines. In reaction on a posting by Thorsten, who found out in a game MCP versus Hiarcs that MCP played 37 moves of 'theory' and left the book with a +4 score. THAT is a development I dislike. Regards, Jeroen > >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. > >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. > >The *effect* is counter-revolutionary, while the *intent* was greater >knowledge. > >You guys argue to shoot Sandro Nechi. Instead you should be applauding >him. > >Chris Whittington
This page took 0.02 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.