Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:11:39 06/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 22, 1999 at 12:13:20, Jesus de la Villa wrote: >Hi, > >The WCCC show us again that "Big Irons" are not necesary to make good >chess. what is the point ?, big hardware ?, such harware can calculate >than at 80 ply it can win a pawn, but hardware, not software. Any >one of us can write a brute force, put it on big hardware, and win the >game from the first move, is it the point?. I doubt very much if that is the case. The only "Big Iron" to score well was Cilkchess. The other two monster hardware entries got the stuffings knocked out of them. Do you imagine that you could do better? It is a very difficult project to separate chess into independent threads of execution. Those programmers like Vincent Diepeveen, Robert Hyatt, and Don Dailey (et.al.) have done something remarkable in providing that separation. Your question was, "What is the point?" The point is that we should try as many things as we possibly can to find out what works best. If a given approach does not work as well as some other approach, then we modify it. If it still does not work as well, perhaps we will try something else. >What programs has to improve are strategics, the programs must target to >a long term strategic supported by small tactical combinations, what a >beauty, isn't it the way we play ?, do we need to see 20 ply to make a >single move ?. None of the chess programs in the contest plotted strategies. Human written chess programs have a lot of tactical knowlege, a little positional knowlege and zero strategic knowlege. >All the time we are targeting to a estrategic point, sometimes appears >tactics with and end other than our estrategic target, but that is >circunstantial, we don't played the game for this. That is the biggest difference between humans and computers in chess playing. We do very well at forming a long range goal and trying to reach it. However, short range details can trip us up. Computers are the opposite. >excuseme if i say WE when i must say I. > >IMO speed is not the main point, improve knowledge. I agree with this assessment, if we are to have some kind of revolutionary advance.
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.