Author: Andrei P
Date: 16:27:51 01/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2005 at 19:12:20, Steve B wrote: >>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 agree, more efforst should be put in designing a chess program that is most human-like in style. it does not have to be super-strong, and it will still sell well. why there is not much effort in that direction beats 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.