Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: What is Botvinnik's legacy to computer chess?

Author: leonid

Date: 18:05:47 02/20/00

Go up one level in this thread

On February 20, 2000 at 19:25:10, blass uri wrote:

>On February 20, 2000 at 14:39:24, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>On February 20, 2000 at 01:39:09, Drazen Marovic wrote:
>>>What is Botvinnik's legacy to computer chess?
>>That to write a good chess program it's better not to be a strong chess player.
>I do not agree about it.
>You cannot teach your program things that you do not know.

You don't teach your game to play but you depose exact logic to go after. Only
when hardware is very weak your game is forced to go after some "general
orientation". Finding the mate, for instance, is done after strict logic and
nothing more. When in the game you have "something more" there are the good
chances that it will make the mistakes in some places.

>If you are not a strong player your program is going not to know important

>You have a very good program but I believe that your program could be better
>if you were a better chess player because you had more ideas.
>I agree that it is important not to assume that you know everything and to test
>every change that you do and not to assume that it is a positive change without
>testing it but you can be a good chess player without assuming that you know
>>Strong players have too much prejudices about how to write a chess program.
>>In order to write a good chess program you must be ready to forget all you know
>>about chess, and re-discover it completely.
>You do not need to forget all you know and you can use part of what you know
>but you need not to be sure about things without testing and to check if your
>changes are productive and not counter productive.
>If strong players do it then the fact that they are strong chess players is only
>an advantage.

This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.