Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:58:58 02/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2003 at 05:14:39, ludicrous wrote: >What if Amir Ban, Frans Morsch, Mark Uniacke, Richard Lang, Ed Schroeder, Per >Ola, De Koning, Steen, Chrilly, Robert Hyatt, Ulrich Turke, Baudot, Hirsch, Plus >interested Freeware Programmers team up to produce THE chess engine. Let us >just say, all for the improvement of Chess AI. Same answer. Reason: it's a principal impossibility to find code [that is meant with "understanding"] for the concrete situation in dependance of the deep consequences. The difficulty is the code for the importance of the concrete in the presence of the general. My point is, also for the Kasparov-Junior show event, that if the human player could not exploit the principal faults of the machine [and it's already clear that Kasparov is either too weak (also psychologically against the machine in a show event) or he plays the usual show event crap, just make your own choice], it does not mean that there don't exist such principal disadvantages, that a creative 'expert' (not IM or GM) could exploit! Although books and tables are a terrible weapon against amateur players. But - also for the books and tables I repeat the same statement. Ingenious experts can always find a solution because also here the same law is valide! There is no code or book line to solve the contradiction between the concrete and the general in a single position in chess. As to the tables it's clear that once you're in you can't find a way out anymore, so logically you must prevent certain developments earlier in the game. But for a human player that is not a principal difficulty either. Rolf Tueschen
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.