Author: Graham Laight
Date: 08:49:51 11/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
Sorry everyone - I missed a thread further down which actually is relevant! I got worked up after reading Amir and Bruce's replies to your original post, which struck me as bordering on the irrelevant, I'm afraid. -g On November 17, 2000 at 11:31:47, Graham Laight wrote: >On November 16, 2000 at 09:07:23, walter irvin wrote: > >>to me programs fall into 2 list bean counters and knowledge based . >>bean counters >>fritz >>junior >>nimzo >>lg2000a >> >>knowledge based >>shredder >>hiarcs >>rebel >>tiger >>diep >>crafty >>king >> >>now you would think that the knowledge based programs would destroy bean >>counters .but that is usually not the case .bean counters are some of the best >>and strongest .which makes me wonder if trying to put so much knowledge in a >>program really makes it better .i think that depth of search would count for >>more than knowledge . > >Hi Walter, > >I've read the other threads in reply to your post, and I disagree with them >profoundly. > >In fact, at the risk of being insulting (sorry chaps!), I think they're stupid. > >What is meant by "bean counting", as used by Chris Whittington (aka Joe Besogn) >is evaluating a position by generating as many "nodes" in the "game tree" from >this position as possible, and selecting the move that allows the least worst >position to be achieved by the opponent. The emphasis is on generating as many >Nodes Per Second (NPS) as possible. > >"Knowlwdge" (or at least what I think people should mean by "knowledge") is how >much you know about something. It is estimated that human GMs know 50,000 >discrete things (or recognise 50,000 different patterns) about chess. (Source: >chess skills in man and machine). > >Where we have access to the source code for a program, we can make an estimate >of the amount of knowledge that exists. I have done this for the evaluate.c >function of Crafty.x (modified 6/1/00) which I downloaded from Dann Corbitt's >site. I counted 150 discrete pieces of knowledge. I don't claim that number to >be 100% accurate (I did the count quite quickly), but I do claim it to be of the >right order of magnitude. > >Now, if we accept that both the 150 and the 50,000 number are of the right order >of magnitude, one would have to agree that the human GM is strongly "knowledge" >based, wheras Crafty is strongly "bean counter" based. > >What the other threads from your post are about, goodness only knows. > >-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.