Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:24:56 01/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2004 at 05:14:28, Vasik Rajlich wrote:
>On December 31, 2003 at 21:23:25, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On December 31, 2003 at 20:58:08, Tord Romstad wrote:
>>
>>>On December 31, 2003 at 13:43:42, Steven Edwards wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 31, 2003 at 13:31:56, Ed Trice wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>This was the Qh5+!! sacrifice, correct?
>>>>
>>>>Yes; a mate in ten. One variation found by Symbolic's low level search goes:
>>>>
>>>>(1. Qh5+ Nxh5 2. fxe6+ Kg6 3. Bc2+ Kg5 4. Rf5+ Kg6 5. Rf6+ Kg5 6. Rg6+ Kh4 7.
>>>>Re4+ Nf4 8. Rxf4+ Kh5 9. Rg3 Bxe6 10. Bg6#)
>>>
>>>Symbolic is an extremely interesting project, and I hope you succeed in creating
>>>a super strong engine with your unusual approach. However, forced mate
>>>positions
>>>like this one are not a good way to measure progress. Solving them quickly is
>>>easily
>>>achieved by more conventional methods (the above position is solved in 7 plies
>>>and
>>>only a couple of seconds by Gothmog), and does not necessarily imply high
>>>playing
>>>strength in normal games.
>>>
>>>Tord
>>
>>
>>
>>Solving it in approximately the same time with a totally new approach would be
>>extremely encouraging I would say.
>>
>>Current computer chess programs are light years behind human intelligence. Mine
>>included. More "human-like" or "intelligent" approaches are really welcome and a
>>very promising field.
>>
>>I'm fed up with Crafty or Fritz or Chess 4.x clones. I'm fed up with chess
>>calculators. Show me something else now.
>>
>>It is going to be a very hard road. But there is much more merit in it than in
>>writing yet-another-alphabeta-nullmove-hashtables-computer-chess-program.
>>
>>I would *LOVE* to see Chess Tiger torn into pieces by a Symbolic-like approach.
>>The whole computer chess field needs to have his ass kicked by something new,
>>because the current approach is coming to an end: it's very good, but has taught
>>us very little about what intelligence is. It's like the Matrix movies: lots of
>>promises at the begining, only disappointement in the end.
>>
>>Just one warning: avoid falling in the Botvinik trap.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>Maybe computer go will end up telling us more about "what intelligence is",
>because there alpha-beta with a few search tricks doesn't seem to be getting
>anywhere.
>
>Vas
Yes, I partially agree wth you.
Christophe
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.