Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 13:49:51 05/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 1999 at 14:00:40, Christophe Theron wrote:
- snip -
>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
Agree!
There are (at least) two ways to use the term Knowledge-based:
1) Strictly as in the AI field. I know of no program worth mentioning
that uses knowledge engineering, knowledge bases or something like
that. I don't even think it would be a good idea...
2) In a more general way, meaning that the program is build up by more or less
*pure* chess knowledge.
There are no *pure* chess knowledge in the program. Everything in the
program has to be tuned, including the chess knowledge. It is not possible
to include some evaluation term without thinking about how it cooperates
with the search. For the same reason it is not possible to make good
changes in the search heuristics without thinking about how it affects
the evaluation code. The different parts of the program has to work together
as a whole. The best program as a whole has the best chess knowledge.
Of course we have something called luck but that's another story... :)
//Peter
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.