Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 17:40:51 03/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2000 at 20:23:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Two issues: > >(1) it is only necessary that the program win the game, not win it in the >shortest number of moves. You entered a raw position, which means there is >no 'context' of what might be repetitions. It will take many checks before >it learns which are leading to repetitions, and then starts to migrate the >king in the right direction, only to avoid the draws. IMHO this is perfectly >ok, just so it wins and doesn't draw. > >(2) tablebases solve this instantly. Your two points are quite in order. Still, what I find a little irritating is the inability of otherwise strong programs to "see" winning sequences in perfectly plain positions, such as the one I quoted. And that is all. Somehow I still cannot accept the programs' blindness in such situations, especially if the path to winning is a matter of a single quick glance for humans. It is actually the "understanding" of positions that is sometimes so sadly missing in programs. Therefore I guess that your evaluation of top programs not yet being GM's is not very far off the mark :-) It is positions like this that may sober up avid comp chess fans. *** Djordje
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.