Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 06:50:24 10/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 18:11:41, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >We are not dealing here with a formal system where one could prove to you one >way or the other by offering a chain of logical deductions from a commonly >accepted premises to the conclusions. right. >Another factor to take into account is that its current impressive >performance, the scores and the beta testers' judgments/impressions, is achieved >by a largely untuned (at least in its key novelty areas) new engine. Either >Christophe was very lucky to strike the right tuning values in the first few >shots (so it won't improve noticably in version 2), or he did come up with >something really new, an entirely new evaluation technique perhaps, which will >boost the state of the art by at least couple hundred points, while making games >much more enjoyable to humans, by the time it gets fully refined and extended to the other aspects of the play (besides king attacks). christophe is on the right way, and so are others. this will be the next movement in computerchess. >In any case, it is unfair to classify it at this stage as just another gimmick, >some kind of cheap king safety evaluation tuning effect that many have toyed >with and failed with. right. i dont understand that bob is not seeing it. as a professor for computerchess he should in my opinion be open for any new ideas and developments. i mean: he should promote new ideas and not argue against them ! if everything would stay the same in life and science, we would still sit on the trees and eat bananas. its the job of somebody working at institutions that work in this field to push and care on new developments, and not to pull them back and to deny that they exist or whatever exorcism bob is trying to deal with. > I think it is already doing much better than what such >cheap "novelties" would have shown. Reading between the lines of Christophe's >posts here during the last year, I do see hints of a crystallization process of >a new technique (which ended up as GT), at least christophe is on the way to alice in the wonderland. the mirror world. >something which grew out of, or was >inspired by, some kind of cross between Lang's and Kittinger's ideas (at least >as he glimpsed at them through the reverse engineering of their programs). oh come on. reverse engineering. thats what vincent always comes with. i think this is wasting time. the guys you spy at, have no better ideas than you have, why should it make SENSE to find out how richard has done it. thats last century technique. Kittinger maybe.
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.