Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:23:05 07/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 18:34:05, Christophe Theron 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 > > > >As far as I know our neural networks are quite good at mathematics, and that's >not a fuzzy discipline at all. That's to answer your previous message. > >Considering the current state of computer chess it is very possible that the >only way to finally demonstrate a real superiority over the world champion (or >the five best human chess players on the planet) will come from something that >will have something to do with neural networks. > >I see the current approach at best to be able to demonstrate that it is on par >with the best human player. I don't know what you think, but I consider this to >be extremely humiliating for computer science, given the efforts and resources >that have been spent on it. I do not think that a lot of efforts have been spent on it. I think that the main problem is that programmers usually work alone and not in a team. I think that a team of 2 programmers when one decides about data structure and algorithms when the second works to implement thing without bugs may be good. Considering the bugs that happen even in released software it is clear that companies who sell chess programs do not have a good programmer that his job is to do defined tasks without bugs(I mean here a good programmer in the meaning of having the talent to write programs without bugs). I can only say that I am not the right person for that job and some test is needed to be done to find the right person. > >A well trained brain can be world chess champion, a well trained 386 cannot. >Unless you are extremely optimistic about computer science. :) I am optimistic. I believe that the 386 were not well trained. Uri
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.