Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 11:58:53 12/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2000 at 14:51:38, Mogens Larsen wrote: >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. > You saw it. Well done.
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.