Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 11:51:38 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. These goals as you call them are guided by weights of the evaluation terms and the knowledge of the program, so in reality you're tuning for good execution of a certain and limited type of positions/goals. The program will perform more or less sane moves until the score inflates and it has a goal. That's randomness. The progress in computer chess (IMO) is that the waiting moves are getting better. By this I mean better at aiming for positions where the program excels, but not good enough to call it planning. Too many holes and exceptions. I guess that speculative scores is a way to bypass that problem. Making it do something instead of nothing. I still see that as forced behaviour. Sometimes the goals are correct and "the plan" works and sometimes not, but it contains the randomness of tuned weights and knowledge. The previously mentioned carrot on a stick. The main problem is that it's guided by evaluation and when that starts to fail or becomes static, planning goes out the window because the goal disappears. >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. Off course it does. But you're making the mistake of concluding on the basis of positions where it finds the plan due to specific tuning or pure calculation. In most cases that doesn't involve material gain or exposing the opponents king, which makes the program oblivious to planning. Uri's example is quite good in that regard. >It doesn't refute the fact that programs DO plan. There is no fact to refute. All programs can occasionally find the right moves in a position, which would constitute planning in your opinion. However, such incidents are indistinguishable from pure calculation without purpose. Either a program plans or it doesn't. It plans sometimes doesn't work. >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. Yes, they have. But not as much as you think IMO. Mogens.
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.