Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 11:00:40 05/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 1999 at 03:41:00, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>On April 30, 1999 at 21:36:35, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On April 30, 1999 at 11:37:23, James T. Walker wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>Food for thought. Which programs are considered by most people as simply fast
>>>searchers and which are Knowledge based?
>>>Examples?
>>>"Fast searchers"
>>>Fritz
>>>Junior
>>>Nimzo
>>>
>>>"Knowledge based"
>>>?
>>>
>>>I think many claim to be in between. CM6K,Hiarcs,MchessPro?
>>>
>>>I would like some opinions and why.
>>>Jim Walker
>>
>>
>>Chess Tiger is a knowledge based program. The purpose of anything I put in it >is to understand chess better and to win more games. That's why it's knowledge
>>based.
>>
>> Christophe
>
>Say that I write a program to play tic-tac-toe. It is able to search through
>the game tree and make a game-theoretic optimal move every time. It only has a
>search and leaf-node evaluator in it. Now, I put in both of those things so
>that it can understand tic-tac-toe better, and win more games. This is NOT a
>knowledge-based program. It is a search-based program. There is a large
>difference.
You are only saying that very little knowledge is needed to play tic-tac-toe, as
it is possible to search from the begining position to the end of the game.
>That heuristics exist in Chess Tiger to aid the search does not change the
>fundamental nature of the program. I am not suggesting that it is impossible to
>have a knowledge-based program. PARADISE is a good example of one, though AFAIK
>it did not play complete games.
>
>Dave
So what you call knowledge is "knowledge in the evaluation only"?
Why do you want to narrow the field of knowledge?
Through the years I have learned that chess knowledge is not only about
evaluating positions, but also about deciding which lines to search. Ask any
grandmaster: this is a fundamental issue in chess.
If you want to know if program A has better knowledge than prog B, just let them
play a long match. The one that wins is the one that has the most knowledge
about chess (I mean the most relevant knowledge, I suppose you are not
interested in irrelevant knowledge).
It is as simple as that. Any other dichotomy about what is knowledge and what is
not is artificial.
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.