Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: likelihood instead of pawnunits? + chess knowledge

Author: Ingo Lindam

Date: 05:15:28 10/28/02

Go up one level in this thread

On October 27, 2002 at 20:21:34, Bob Durrett wrote:

>Generally, It seems to me that you would do yourself a disservice if you went >to
>all the trouble of producing and then using the patterns just to obtain a
>position value.  This seems like a lot of work to generate a lot of great
>information only to ignore 99% of your findings and then just use the remaining

Yes, ofcourse. But I guess I have to start somewhere. And when this 1% of
remaining findings helps to make an engine play somehow reasonable chess, helps
the engine to avoid makeing senseless things it would be a success that could
help to wakeup interest for the other 99% of pattern, ideas... findings.

>Specifically, it would be a pity if all the computations in current engines
>would still have to be done in your program.  What would you save?  [I would
>like to see ALL searching become ancient history;  i.e. something on display at
>the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, DC, USA]

Yes... as well as it is a pity now to see computers play (or nearly play) on the
level of world champions... but there is no knowledge a computer filters out of
its thoughts to give us an abstract that helps us to understand chess. (ofcourse
there were human world champions who can't do that either ;-)) The computers
nowadays make such a lot of computations at every game they play (and they play
a lot of games) and not only their thoughts are most of all useless for us....
it is also of nearly no use for their own future games.

You are right... it is really a pity. ;-)


This page took 0.01 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.