Author: Graham Laight
Date: 14:39:21 11/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2000 at 12:42:09, Amir Ban wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>>Actually, I didn't mean to imply that.
>>
>>There's probably more correlation between speed and knowledge than there is
>>between, say, board colour and playing strength - but you're certainly not going
>>to get a correlation of 1.
>>
>>>The notion of gauging knowledge by size of evaluation function or pieces of
>>>knowledge is even sillier than gauging strength by node count.
>>
>>I don't agree. In the case of Crafty's evaluate.c program, because it is written
>>so clearly, I think one can count the discrete pieces of knowledge with
>>confidence.
>>
>
>I meant that the count is meaningless regardless of how clear its value is.
I think we'd all agree that, although it's not 100%, there's certainly a
correlation between NPS and playing strength.
Is there not the remotest possibility that there's also some correlation between
the number of discrete pieces of knowledge (DPK) a program has and its playing
strength?
Or even that there's a similar sort of correlation between DPK and strength and
NPS and strength?
-g
>Amir
>
>
>>-g
>>
>>>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.