Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 11:02:11 12/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2000 at 13:30:32, Christophe Theron wrote: >This way of explaining things shows that you don't know how programs can plan. >It's not about changing weights of the evaluation terms. It's about looking at >the position like a human would do and selecting the appropriate "goals", and >then trying to achieve them by calculation. right. some programs really do so. not in any game it can be easily seen. not in any game it works. i think i have seen such a behaviour in some mchess games. also gandalf comes to my mind. gambit-tiger of course. also cstal. hiarcs. also certain diep versions were able to do so. in older times Kaplan programs were good for this. Maestro D or D+ or D++ e.g. or Socrates. >What you are saying here is not that program do not plan. You are just saying >that in some cases they don't find the right plan, or don't have one. It happens >to humans too. >It doesn't refute the fact that programs DO plan. i have tried to discuss this with mogens before. you will not make progress telling him. he is HIS opinion and is not changing. guess he is still in the 20th century. or whatever. he denies it and you can show him whatever you want, he will not see it. its hopeless IMO. but - i will watch how this continues. maybe you get successful. >Chess programs have others ways to plan. Not just bigger carrot and longer >stick. >That was good in the Chess Challenger era. Programs have evolved, you know. :-))) >So I guess I should stop trying to explain you why they plan. yes. as i said: its hopeless. he knows anything. like bob. they should try to mary. would be a good pair. he knows everything and programs, and he knows everything and tests. famous couples, like oscar soandso and felix unger. you remember them ? > Christophe
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.