Author: Jeroen van Dorp
Date: 07:17:28 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
I don't believe it. Basically you are stating that -like some people suggest happens in particle physics- suddenly ideas change in the same direction all over the world amongst computer programmers. There's no need to resort to these kind of off-limit comparisons. It is a logical development, no new or shifting paradigms. We all know what good chess consists of, yet we don't know how to translate it into a chess program. It is obviously that every programmer tries to correct factors like "event horizon", "lack of positional insight", "being unable to make a plan". Until now the bypass is "fast counting" or "a lot of chess knowledge" into the program. But basically the principle is still the same: look for the best bypass there is, as long as we don't know exaclty how we should translate human insight into a computer chess program. Programs like CS Tal II, Gambit Tiger, Shredder 5, Deep Junior are evolutions of the initial bypass, they don't use new or shifted paradigms. They still count. They still see positions, and give them a value. They still have their horizon. Faster hardware enables more knowledge against a higher node speed, as an example. The program seems to understand more, but still doesn't understand. It counts faster, can handle more instructions per second, focuses maybe on other chess knowledge rules. A new paradigm is not "a better bypass". These programs are getting more amazing every new day, but still it's making things better step by step, with the same basic principles. J.
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.