Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:09:31 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 16:26:04, Otello Gnaramori wrote:
>On May 06, 2002 at 06:12:39, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>
>>On May 05, 2002 at 19:58:09, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>
>>>What you need to consider is the number of years the programmer has spent
>>>actively working on his program.
>>>
>>>That gives much better figures.
>>
>>I agree 100%. Experience matters a lot. One of the important
>>things experience teaches is what not to do.
>>
>>You don't find the latter anywhere.
>>
>>>"Knowledge" in the sense of positional evaluation (that's what most people think
>>>about when they talk about knowledge) makes for 10% of the strength of a chess
>>>program.
>>>
>>>Chess is 90% about tactics (which is a concept close to "search").
>>>
>>>Naturally there is also a good deal of chess "knowledge" in a good search, but
>>>it is really different from what most people generally consider to be
>>>"knowledge".
>>
>>These statements somewhat amaze me. I would have thought the most important
>>thing for a chess engine (given an already decent search) is to have a good
>>positional evaluation.
>
>Peter Frey, in his book "Chess Skill in Man and Machine," says that some experts
>think that a chess program with sophisticated search algorithms and little chess
>knowledge might approach master level.
There are commercial programs which have been brilliant example of this.
Christophe
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.