Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Knowledge is not elegant.

Author: Fernando Villegas

Date: 12:49:35 06/14/98

Go up one level in this thread

Deart Don: I think all your post, enterily, show very clearly the biased
and -I believe- wrong way to understand knowledege manyb programmers and
customer have. They tends to assimilate knowledge with the acumulation
of knowledege, and is not. That is erudition, data acumulation, etc.
Real Knowledege is not unelegant is not a heap of knowledege, but on the
contrary is to know the simples way to get something to be done. So,
programs will be knowledhgeable no when they stock in his memories the
total amount of theroy and rules of thumbs, etc, but on the contraru
cqwith very simple methods they can grasp the sence of a ches game, that
is, what is happening, what is relevant in the total conmplx of pieces
 Do you think capablanca played like a God because he knew all the
rules? Sure he knew a lot, but the point to any chess player with some
degree of understanding is that Capablanca just implemented simple but
very efficient algoryhtms. A master that is my friend explained to me
how Capablanca examined a game: instead of beginning from a position and
then performing moves, one after another, he said "this is a position we
must reach" and after putting the pices in that ideal position, he then
returned to the first position and looked for the moves to reach there.
Do you see the point? That is understanding. Thta is elegance. Sure,
neither elegance nor understanding will be get just piling rules. Is
something else. Maybe the program should be capable to identify
positions from a huge table of positions and then formulate what piece
of his code to implement, what moves to look, what he must look for?

This page took 0.06 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.