Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 17:12:02 12/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2001 at 13:10:08, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 27, 2001 at 02:13:34, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On December 26, 2001 at 17:47:12, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>I don't think so, but I think at some point the only way to improve will be to >>>incorporate a way for the program to learn without the programmer, to remember >>>its experience and improve on it, and to adapt its play to its opponent. >> >>I don't see this as likely because of the numbers involved. >> >>For a computer to recognize features, it has to loop over them. And there might >>as well be an infinite number of features possible on a chess board, so that >>loop is going to take a while. >> >>The human brain is sloppy and bad at this task, so maybe there's some way to do >>sloppy and bad learning that does better than what we have now, but I wouldn't >>know how to go about that. > > > >That's the problem, I do not know either. > >But the reason we know that there is another way of playing chess is because >human chess players have a "NPS" that is a very small fraction of todays >computers NPS. The best human players only look at 1/100000 of the nodes a >computer looks at in order to play a move of comparable quality. I have always believed that this "human NPS" stuff is a load of crap. I do not play chess well and I'm not close with anybody who does play chess particularly well, but the idea that a human would "visit" distinct "nodes" to "search" for a good move strikes me as absurd. Maybe this is what strong humans actually do, but I have a hard time believing that. -Tom
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.