Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 19:56:37 07/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2002 at 20:02:33, Uri Blass wrote: >I think that in order to teach a computer to understand something you need first >to define it. > >You do not give a definition why it is good to castle but you expect programs >to know the definition that you seem not to know. > >I think that you expect too much. >Programmers have problems to explain to computers without bugs things that they >know to define and you expect them to explain to computers things that they even >do not know. > >Uri Let me make sure I understand you. You are saying that to use the common method of piece tables and other penalties and bonuses it doesn't require the programmer to have to understand a great deal about chess. To use the other approach, you would have to have extensive chess knowledge yourself, right? I think that is fair, and it certainly would be more difficult to use the harder method, but I think that we should strive for that and not just settle for something because it is the easiest. Russell
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.