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.