Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 11:31:07 11/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2000 at 21:05:04, stuart taylor wrote: > Will this tripple brain arbitter be of any worthwhile value using a great >positional program where the long term value of immeadiate material or >positional "sacrifice" is not desinged to be clear till much later? > I can't see how. And therefore, a really strong and knowledgable engine will >be far better without the tripple brain arbiting, even together with a similar >strength engine, if they can't understand each others plans. > Then, each engine by itself might be better, because they won't INTERFERE with >each other and mix up two plans, causing NO plan. >S.Taylor The above seems to be an attempt to compare: (a) the case of humans playing as a team for one side, and (b) the case of chess engines playing as a team for one side. Making these comparisons seems fair enough, as long as the differences between the way humans cooperate and the way chess engines might cooperate are taken into account. In the human case, it is customary, and probably absolutely necessary, to have a team leader who makes the final decision. In the engines case, it is not so clear [at least to me] that having a "team leader" is essential. But if it is, then the "final decision" perhaps would be made by the "voting" software rather than by one of the "players."
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.