Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 09:19:18 05/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 1999 at 16:49:51, Peter Fendrich wrote: >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. This was not my suggestion. I do not see it anywhere in the thread either. >>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. This isn't true. There is a difference between means and ends. There is also a difference between ability and understanding. >> >> 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... Well, as a graduate student in the AI field, I hope that Christophe and you will permit me my insistance that _this_ is the way that attaches real semantic meaning to the term, and other uses debase the term's value. > 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... :) The best program as a whole might not have the best chess knowkedge, it might simply execute compute things more quicky. The computer is not self-aware that it is computing something more quickly than it would had it chosen an alternative way, so I reject that e.g. code optimization implies more knowledge, even though performance may be improved. >//Peter Dave
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.