Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 17:38:08 12/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2001 at 14:11:35, Dann Corbit wrote: >On December 12, 2001 at 13:47:31, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On December 12, 2001 at 12:19:56, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >> >>>On December 12, 2001 at 11:34:09, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>I'm not saying that chess knowledge accounts for nothing. I just dispute the >>>>fact that chess experts have chess knowledge: >>>>1) that would be useful for a chess program >>>>2) that a weak player like me cannot either find by itself or find around him >>>>(by asking to better players or finding it in books) >>>> >>>>I'm doing chess programming since a long time and I don't think I would have >>>>benefited much from a grandmaster by my side, if I had been given the >>>>opportunity to have one. >>>> >>>>And as I have said many times, I even believe that a gransmaster involved in a >>>>chess programming team would be counter productive. >>>> >>> >>>I think that depends how you use the grandmaster. As opponents they can still >>>defeat the programs and the programmers can learn from the games (even if the >>>machine wins). Some 20 years ago they were a lot stronger than the machines, at >>>that time I think any computer-chess team would have found productive to play >>>against grandmasters. >>>I.e. what the grandmaster does really well is to play chess, let her/him play >>>against your program (but they usually charge some money). >>>José. >> >> >> >>Right. They are useful because they have playing strength. Not because they can >>explain how to achieve playing strength, because they either cannot explain, or >>we cannot make good use of their knowledge. > >I think we have been looking at the situation from different angles. >Somewhere along the line, GM knowlege must come into play. Perhaps the source >is simply GM's playing againt the program. Perhaps in giving specific advice. >But I suspect that all the best programs have had a lot of very valuable input >from GM's in one way or another. Well... I'm still trying to find an example of important contribution by a GM for Tiger. Christophe >Hardware specific knowledge is not very important. I mean, beyond what a >computer science major would already know. The one clear exception is the deep >blue team, where hardware knowledge was key. I guess Hitech too. And any other >chess dedicated hardware. But that is really the rare exception and not the >rule.
This page took 0.01 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.