Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:12:08 11/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2000 at 18:08:46, Graham Laight wrote:
>On November 17, 2000 at 13:02:04, Amir Ban wrote:
>
>>You are missing the point that there do not really exist two separate
>>approaches. The term "bean counter" (as used in this thread, it originally meant
>>something else) is derogratory. The term "knowledge based" is mostly hype.
>>
>>Amir
>
>There are many things that we classify with fuzzy boundaries - but classify them
>we do.
>
>If the term "bean counter" is derogatory, we can use something else (e.g.
>"fast").
>
>"Fast" could be classified in terms of depth, NPS and the like.
>
>"Knowledgable" could be classified in terms of the number of discrete pieces of
>knowledge a program uses (which I think is a better measure than lines of code).
>
Notice that you are now assuming that "knowledge" and "fast" are opposites. How
do you know this ? If there's anything I said in this thread, it's that this is
not true.
The notion of gauging knowledge by size of evaluation function or pieces of
knowledge is even sillier than gauging strength by node count.
Amir
>People often dislike being classified with fuzzy boundaries - but if so, they
>would be hippocritical if they then classified other people in this way ("old
>man", "young man", "boy", "genius", "idiot" etc).
>
>-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.