Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 13:25:12 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 16:04:45, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On July 01, 2003 at 15:31:55, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On July 01, 2003 at 14:29:25, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On July 01, 2003 at 14:21:12, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On July 01, 2003 at 13:32:19, Ralph Stoesser wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hello *, >>>>> >>>>>Why no top engine uses neural networks for positional evaluation in non-tactical >>>>>situations? Are there interesting publications about neural networks and chess >>>>>programming? >>>>> >>>>>Ralph >>>> >>>>Neural networks are for analyzing things that are >>>>"fuzzy"--voice/image/handwriting recognition, etc. Chess is a very exacting >>>>game. (It makes a big difference if your rook is on d1 vs. e1.) I doubt neural >>>>networks will ever be useful for chess. >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>> >>>Hmmm..but Kasparov uses the neural network within his brain to play chess >>>doesn't he? Are you contending he does not use his brain to play chess? Divine >>>inspiration? >>> >>>Perhaps you meant to say something like, "I doubt [the current interpretations >>>of] neural networks will ever be useful for chess." >> >>Kasparov has billions of neurons with 10-50 times as many interconnections. A PC >>has 50 million transistors and plays chess approximately as well. It's obvious >>to me that the human brain is not as well suited to playing chess as a computer >>(esp. considering that most human brains are much worse at chess than a 386). >> >>-Tom > >It doesn't seem as well suited, because it is not specialized for playing only >chess. How would feel about Deep Blue driving you to work through rush hour >traffic? My mistake. Humans are less complicated and better at chess than computers. -Tom
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.