Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 14:28:41 05/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 1999 at 14:42:38, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On May 02, 1999 at 12:19:18, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>>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. > >Don't get me wrong here Dave! I said exactly this in some other >"Knowledge"-thread 3-4 weeks ago. I worked for 8 years in Volvo Data's AI group >and during the 8'th year I was the manager of the AI department. >Then we also should be able to agree on that none of the active chess-programs >today are knowledge-based in this sense. > >>> 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. > >Now we are arguing about what chess-knowledge is. It's hard to define and hard >to capture. Chess-knowledge in a program using search is not the same as >chess-knowledge in peoples mind. >There are many ways to optimize the code. One example is to change some >evaluation term and make it simpler so search goes faster. If this change makes >the program a better chess player, where is the chess knowledge now? Before the >change, the programs evaluation term was maybe better expressed and that made it >easy to find this specific chunk of knowledge. After the change the same >knowledge is handled by a combination of the faster search, the simpler code and >the other evaluation terms that are working together. The knowledge is there but >hard to find. >//Peter I am not terribly interested in arguing about what chess knowledge is. I am interested in making the distinction between knowledge-based and search-based methods. I think we all agree that more chess knowledge can help you search better. 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.