Author: Steve Coladonato
Date: 11:17:52 02/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
This article and the one by Stefan Meyer-Kahlen bring up some interesting points. It seems that chess programming is being solved in essentially the same way by all programmers (generalization). And it also seems that hardware development is driving the increase in chess program strength, not the algorithms in the program. With this in mind, the "brute force" method of solution seems to be the state of the art at this time. And are not EGT's a solution to the brute force method for endings? Likewise, opening books are a solution to the "brute force" method for the opening. Given sufficient hardware capabilities, these two areas could be solved with "brute force" programming. Which leaves us the "middle" game as the current focus of algorithms. I am not a chess programmer but I do understand that the current algorithms are quite good at determining a "best" move for a given position. Is the paradigm that is used for these algorithms the way things should proceed? Or, should the programmers try to find other ways? I am not attempting to criticize any of the work that has been accomplised so far as it is rather amazing. I am just wondering if the field has gotten into a rut and `can't see the forest for the trees`?
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.