Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 04:18:13 02/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2004 at 17:11:57, martin fierz wrote: >i believe it's fundamentally wrong to force computers into some human >straight-jacket. we have our capacities, the computers have theirs. nobody in >his right mind would attempt to emulate the human thought process on a computer >when trying to add up two numbers. >limiting yourself to 1000 nodes for a search, just because humans are limited to >that seems like limiting yourself to e.g. computing one digit per second in an >addition - and then claiming that that is better than doing it in a nanosecond >:-) I am not sure I agree. It all depends on what your goals are. If your goal is to get a better understanding of how the human brain works when playing a game of chess, it definitely makes sense not to search more nodes than a human player would have been able to search in a reasonable amount of time. If your goal is to create the strongest possible program, the situation is of course entirely different. But even in this case, it is not impossible that knowledge gained by studying how the human brain works could somehow be useful. I don't think a chess program emulating human thought processes will be competitive any time in the near future (I hope I am wrong, though), but I think there is some hope of making a hybrid approach work. One of my long-term plans (the phrase "long-term plans" is a bit ridiculous here, because my long-term plans tend to change a couple of times every day) is to write a very slow and highly selective engine with lots of chess knowledge, and let it use one or more fast and stupid "sub-engines" to help it do move selection and tactical verification. The idea is to emulate a human player using a computer program to analyze. Tord
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.