Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 16:38:52 01/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2000 at 19:37:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 31, 2000 at 16:39:20, Harald Faber wrote: > >>On January 31, 2000 at 09:55:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>> >>>>I am not sure. My company does ordering of 2^700 possibilities and photo/image >>>>(tyres) recognition which also works by comparing patterns and so on. That works >>>>fine so far, so why shouldn't it be possible to use at least some of these >>>>techniques? It seems to me that you should talk to someone more intensively who >>>>has a much knowlegde of fuzzy programming and fuzzy programming techniques. >>>> >>>The problem however in chess is that you need metaknowledge about a position >>>which decides what you think from an UNKNOWN position. >>>Basically you try to get an evaluation from something unknown, >>>and here lies the problem: >>> >>>In chess you train for the unknown (positions), >>>but in tyresrecognition you know EXACTLY for what tyre you are >>>looking for, so it has a CLEAR and VERY EXACT goal. >>> >>>Vincent >> >>But not for ordering exercises. My boss said there are also very often unclear >>goals. Probably I should give him your e-mail adress, he is definitely the >>better man for talking about fuzzy techniques. > >Your boss doesn't understand chess. > >Let him produce a fuzzy logic chessprogram , no matter how crappy it is. >we can read source better than some vague words. but probably your boss says chess isn't interesting because deep blue already solved it, or because a quantum computer can already solve chess.
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.