Author: Ingo Lindam
Date: 09:44:56 07/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
> b) they do not work very well for situations they are not trained for > and in chess you always explore new positions which are not trained yet, > which is an easy thing to understand once you understand that chess has > 10^44 positions and you could train perhaps for 10^2 positions at > most very well so missing around 10^40 somewhere. I am not voting for using NNs for chess, but is b) a fair agrument? Isn't it sufficient to see all significant features of positions often enough. Also a GM doesn't see 10^44 positions before he starts to play as a GM. Ofcourse the GM does obtain and evaluate some very concrete lines. And I don't suggest neither a human being nor a computer to play chess without calculating concrete lines. (As well as I would not suggest to play chess without having plans and aims and some kind of chess knowledge) Internette Gruesse, Ingo
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.