Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 18:42:33 11/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 2002 at 11:45:29, Daniel Clausen wrote: >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 We don't have mountains in the Netherlands only hills. He he Marc
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.