Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: chess and neural networks

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
>>>>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.
>>>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
>>>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).
>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

My mistake. Humans are less complicated and better at chess than computers.


This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.