Author: Les Fernandez
Date: 22:53:22 12/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2002 at 01:24:57, Uri Blass wrote: >On December 03, 2002 at 00:49:35, Les Fernandez wrote: > >>On December 02, 2002 at 16:41:16, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On December 02, 2002 at 16:14:35, Les Fernandez wrote: >>> >>>>As hardware speed increases, better algorithms for pruning and faster search >>>>routines get better we will start to see some of this imagination all of us >>>>would love to see now. As search depths go deeper more and more positional >>>>effects will be realized since positional play is related to how deep and >>>>thorough your search is. >>>> >>>>Les >>> >>>No >>> >>>The problem is not that the program does not play the best move but that the >>>program does not play the move that is considered by the player as better. >> >>Hi Uri, >> >>I think I misinterpreted the imagination part. To me it meant that a chess >>engine could produce a series of moves, that had it been a human player, would >>have been considered fascinating and ingenius. >>> >>>After it prefers another winning move the player starts to complain that >>>computer have no imagination. >> >>Once computers can search deep enough I dont believe that the player can even >>understand the complexity of the decided move. > >I believe that it already happens. > > > I agree that perhaps due to the >>player not understanding the move the player may consider it unimaginative but >>keep in mind that it may be past the horizon of the human player. Through the >>years there have been many grandmasters whose play was considered stale and >>boring and we never gave that much thought. There will come a point (50,100 or >>200 years) where computers will be able to just out depth humans. The bottom >>line is, whether its boring or exciting, that its not how it plays the game its >>the results that count. >> >>Just my .02 worth. >> >>ps how are you making out with your chess engine? > >I plan to continue to make progress by better search rules. >I believe that better pruning rules can help movei to be significantly faster. > >I believe that programs search too big trees and it is possible to reduce them >by at least 90% if you make the right observations. Wow ! 90%? Uri do you think that is obtainable? That would be a most significant contribution to chess research if that can be done. Lots of luck and please keep me posted occassionally as to how you are progressing. Les > >Uri
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.