Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 08:45:29 11/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
Disclaimer: The following is just my opinion - consider yourself warned :) On November 07, 2002 at 11:12:16, Bob Durrett wrote: [snip] >But what about the BIG deficiencies of engines which everybody knows about >but, so far, noone knows how to eliminate? For example: deficiencies in >long-term strategy, planning, endgame, etc. I see the situation where we are in CC atm like this: We are in a 3-dimensional landscape with mountains, valleys, hills, plateaus, etc. The ultimate goal is to be on the highest point in this scenery. (that is, height is a measure of playing strength in this analogy) We are at one of these mountains, but not on the top of it. What we're trying to do at the moment is to reach the top of that mountain we're on at the moment, or in other words, reach the local maximum. You can do that pretty well with changing something a bit and test whether it pays off or not. The only problem we might face is this: The mountain we're currently on is not the highest one in the landscape. In this case the strategy "changing something a bit and test whather it pays off or not" doesn't really work. We (the computer-chess community) tried other mountains in the past, but maybe (a) we just didn't try enough and therefore were only at the bottom of the mountain (afterall the steepness of a mountain at the bottom is not necessarily a measure for its max height) (b) we just tried the wrong mountains I think that the chances that we're not on the right mountain is rather big (given the number of potential mountains - and no, I don't know how many mountains there are :) But the real question probably is how much higher the top of the right mountain would be compared to the top of the current one. If the difference is not that big, it doesn't matter that much.. but who knows how big it is... Trying out different mountains takes a lot of time, and the "little changes and test" approach is not suited to find it. Therefore I think that it will be a non-commercial (at least at the beginning) chess-programmer, or a scientist-team of some sort (like the Hsu-team (don't start to fight, please :)) who would find a much higher mountain than the current one. Simply because for example the Fritz team can't say "Hey, we know that Fritz9 is weak, but we're on the way to this other mountain and Fritz13 will be much stronger than the competition!". As I said at the beginning, that's just my opinion. :) Sargon
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.