Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:50:54 07/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
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 Depending upon your own definition of fuzzy logics, chess for sure is a fuzzy logics game in the wide perspective seen. I can imagine that if you take computerchess as a serious science that you don't want to get grouped together in the category of fuzzylogics where a lot of idiots are around who at most can reinvent a random way to optimize a few parameters though that can be done faster than with a random search :) Yet in the true sense of the word, Chess can be very clearly seen as a form of fuzzy logics. In fact all evaluations do not evaluate something binary, but in a fuzzy logic way. Some scale of evaluations can get given. So the proof that chess is a fuzzy logic game is just too simple to be true.
This page took 0.01 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.