Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 15:53:27 01/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2004 at 18:32:47, Christophe Theron wrote: >The danger is also in trying to be revolutionary. It should not be your goal. >Take what is good in the current successful approach, and add to it what the >human players do well. > >Basically, a grandmaster searches a tree that is several orders of magnitude >smaller than the tree searched by a computer and they both reach a similar >playing strength. Even among humans there are different approaches that lead to the same conclusion. I remember reading about one of the Tal vs. Botvinik games where they discussed a position after the game. Tal said he looked ahead many moves at long variations to arrive at the conclusion that one move was best. He was shocked that Botvinik arrived at the same conclusion, but did not look ahead many moves. I guess I agree with your other post that a good medium is preferred between dynamic knowledge (search) and static knowledge (evaluation, of various kinds). >I have always been shocked by this. I have tried to work in that direction. I >have been successful by achieving just a ridiculous fraction of the goal. So >imagine how successful one could be if one could achieve just half of that goal! > >There are also possible improvements in the way to evaluate positions, but I >don't think it can be as effective as improvements in the search. > > > > 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.