Author: leonid
Date: 04:18:23 02/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2000 at 02:45:11, blass uri wrote: >On February 20, 2000 at 21:05:47, leonid wrote: > >>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. > >I see teaching a program to play the same as deposing exact logic to go after. > >You cannot depose exact logic that you do not know about. > >One example: >You cannot teach program that KRB vs KRP is usually a draw and that the >evaluation should be close to 0.00 if you do not know it and your evaluation by >only counting material may be +2 and you cannot see the 0 by search because you >cannot search deep enough. > >Uri Maybe here it is possible to be lost somehow because of the nebulosity of expression like "go after the logic". If the "go after the logic" represent some transmission to the game certain human experiece about the game, this experience is rather secondery. Such human experience could be recognition of certain pawn structure, that make certain position vulnerable, or certain pieces too weak when situated in certain board squares. Such a human know-how is not compulsory for writing the good chess game. Base of the game can be all the time exact calcualtion of the position based on material exchange. All human know-how is nothing more but final touches for the game that is already written. And game need it only because the hardware is too weak to reach the final solution on its own. The most clear example about the priority of the logic, over all the human experiece in chess playing, we can see in the solution of mate containing positions. There, to know where mate exactly existe, game must use nothing more but strict logic. All the good guesses about each positions, after human mind, will only slow down entire game and will put in it some very funny and nasty bugs. Leonid.
This page took 0.01 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.