Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 16:08:34 06/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 2002 at 17:10:35, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >On June 22, 2002 at 15:59:38, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On June 22, 2002 at 15:34:17, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >> >>>On June 22, 2002 at 13:47:15, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On June 22, 2002 at 11:42:31, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Upon reflection on the subject, it seems to me that all successful chess engines >>>>>would make extensive use of any and all techniques which could speed up the >>>>>overall process. You might say "Time (clock cycles) is of the essence" in chess >>>>>engines. I would expect the idea of using indicators would have widespread >>>>>application in chess engines. >>>>> >>>>>Just as a fun thing to do, consider the possibility of indicators which would be >>>>>solely for the purpose of deciding whether or not to initiate execution of more >>>>>complicated "indicator" blocks of code. >>>>> >>>>>Bob D. >>>> >>>>I don't think there is a program not using it. >>>>Extension, pruning, what and how much to evaluate, those are examples currently >>>>in use in chessengines. >>>> >>>>But as my argument before showed, you need billions of code sections to handle >>>>all the individual cases. >>>>What you want is a actually an EGTB for all positions, and then a probe into the >>>>evaluator. >>>>The probing can be done more or less elegantly, but who should write all that >>>>evaluation code? >>> >>>Let a specialized computer do it! >> >>You mean write a program to write a chessprogram? >>Somehow I don't think we're approaching a solution here... :) > >_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > >Well . . . :) > >Maybe not give the "whole enchalada" to the "programmer program," but at least >let it do the grunge work. If "billions of code sections to handle all the >individual cases" are needed, then let the "programmer program" come up with >them. Then a "super human" programmer can finish the job and claim authorship. >:) > >You know that it's just a matter of time before human programmers will be >obsolete! Just as computers are taking over the World Chess Championship, they >will eventually take over everything else, too. It's just a matter of time. Unlike with endgame tables this process can't be automated as easily, if at all. What you suggest is much like feeding a dictionary to a computer and then expect it to talk, that is not how things work today. Or perhaps it is I who misunderstand your idea? >I find the idea of a "programmer program" to be a neat idea. Maybe it's time >has come already? > >:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) You are a very happy man I see :) -S. >Signed: HAL >_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > >> >>>>Think of the fortress positions, easy to see for a human, not so for a computer. >>>>Are they important, well yes Smirin showed us that, but how do we evaluate it >>>>staticly? >>> >>>Someone will figure it out. >> >>I doubt it :) >> >>-S.
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.