Author: Steve B
Date: 16:12:20 01/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
>Trying to define beauty with a set of rules is silly to me. the point of the exercise was to develop a program that more closely resembled the same thought process that the 20 rated experts employed(each rated at least 2000 elo) to make a program that "thinks" about its move more like that of a human not to come up with a concrete definition of Beauty when the early AI programers(Turing ,Shannon ,Botvinnik.etc) decided on chess as a worthy subject to try to emulate in a program it was with the idea of having a computer "think" like a human nad therefore learn more about human thought process computer chess has greatly diverged from this path,with the main focus on winning tournaments for awards and prize money therefore you have this current day concentration on more speed and more powerful hardware to search deeper and deeper and thusly you no longer have chess program's that think about a move the way humans would after Kasparov's loss to Deep Blue in 1997 Hans Berliner(former World correspondence champion and programmer of the very first chess program to achieve International master status with Hitech)said "Deep Blues designers did not believe in enhancing chess computers performances by endowing them with humanlike chess knowledge...they knew little about chess" we have gotten far afield from the very reason chess were chosen by the early pioneers in the field of computer chess winning,brute force,speed and power are the order of the day to me..this is silly Best Steve
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.