Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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
>>>>>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 0.02 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.