Author: Vincent Vega
Date: 13:02:27 02/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2000 at 01:30:07, Andrew Dados wrote: > 90% of 'amateur' programmers do it to try out some ideas authors have in their >mind. >And 90% of programmers undertaking this waste of time realizes that neural nets, >genetic alghoritms,(quantum computers?!? - how can amateur try that one?) suck >when comes down to chess so they don't bother. Some pattern recognition can be >found in most programs; while 'knowledge programs' are undef to me, I noticed >alpha-beta can be found in 100% of programs both amateur and commercial.... My >advice - try out your own.. preferably skip that boring alpha-beta crap. It's >fun when you notice chess programming is one of least rewarding hobbies you can >have :) > >-Andrew- Actually genetic algorithms already proved useful when it comes to determining piece values. Amateurs can try quantum algorithms, there are no real quantum computers except 1-bit ones anyway. And I already wrote a chess program with alpha-beta years ago - not much knowledge could be fit in 40-odd KB of memory though :-) Then it was a one-lane road, today it's a 5-lane highway. What I would like to see is chess programs using methods that can be applied to other games and AI fields, unfortunately most prefer to just tweak evaluation so the knowledge gained can only be applied very narrowly.
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.