Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:18:37 01/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2005 at 17:21:26, Steve B wrote: >>Computer play probably has a lot of beauty in it...it's just that we have human >>brains, and those brains constrain our appreciation of beauty. Is beautiful >>chess always winning chess? Is winning chess always beautiful? If winning chess >>is always beautiful, then it would seem that GM-level programs must be producing >>a lot of beautiful chess these days. > >the book tried to define beauty with a set of strict rules >one was the one i mentioned >other's were: >deliver mate with weakest piece possible >use the least number of pieces to effect the mate >etcetc > >by polling the 20 rated experts these rules were observed and then incorporated >into the algorithm > >the author was not making a subjective definition of beauty >only using that term to describe the set of rules that humans follow when >contemplating their next move > >his program closely mimicks how these 20 experts would come uo with a mating >move > >no current day program employs these sorts of rules in evaluating a position Trying to define beauty with a set of rules is silly to me.
This page took 0.01 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.