Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:54:59 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 2003 at 15:01:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I don't think the line is that sharp between book and engine, particularly when >there >is "learning" involved. Actually I agree with that statement, if the book is autotuned by play the "code" isn't as alien as if it had been written straight from the Chess Informat. In the latter case I would just see it as two different pieces of software, thus not as one piece of program (however silly that may sound!:). >> >>The same applies to the egtbs, Junior wouldn't be winning, the egtbs would be. > >Suppose Junior had the code to _build_ the egtbs built in? What then? > >Suppose the EGTBs could be built on the fly, on demand, while the program was >running. What then? Technically the result would be the same, ie. perfect play, so there would be no contest. However in this case I would admit to the computers superiority in endgames, just like I currently admit computers superiority in finding mates in 5. Currently I will only admit to computers ability to store more (random) data, still not able to "out compute" the humans "on the fly". Then again computers are very good at the not overly complex 5 stone endgames, so I might have to admit to that anyway :) -S.
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.