4 ms·
Once I had some (considerable, 3 months) spare time and decided to fulfill my ambition of writing a chess program. This one would be special - it would work to
by abdulhaq 17y ago
Once I had some (considerable, 3 months) spare time and decided to fulfill my ambition of writing a chess program. This one would be special - it would work to a strategy, rather than brute force.
3 months later, and having written it first in Java, then C++, then C, I realised that it could never compete with the brute-force millions-of-nodes-per-second crunching machines.
This actually made me become disillusioned with chess as a whole, although the emergence of Rybka has restimulated my interest somewhat.
The idea that strong chess programs mean that AI is on the march is, sorry, laughable.
- ehsanul 17y agoChess is not where the action's at in AI anyways, so you're right, that idea is indeed laughable. These days, poker is hot new(ish) thing for AI research, with it's stochastic gameplay and psychological twist (bluffing and calling bluffs), and wide range of strategies. See, for example: http://poker.cs.ualberta.ca/ http://poker.cs.ualberta.ca/
- pbhjpbhj 17y agoDon't the likes of Kasparov use strategy to beat the number crunchers though? How about a series of parallel strategies rather than simply crunching all moves and then assessing the best of the strategies. That is imitating a number of lesser players pitted against a better player - could the world #2 and #3 beat the world #1 (if not then probably no mileage¹ in this technique). --- ¹ Kilometrage?