Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:39:50 11/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2000 at 11:58:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 12, 2000 at 19:09:04, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On November 12, 2000 at 17:17:54, Carlos del Cacho wrote: >> >>>On November 12, 2000 at 14:29:22, Mike S. wrote: >>> >>>>But Jeff's question was not about searching more than one move, but about >>>>alternative search methods during pondering (with more knowledge, possibly >>>>creating plans even, or more selective). Would this make sense, or has this been >>>>answered before? Sorry if I missed that. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>M.Scheidl >>> >>>Oh great! If someone could do that, wouldn't he also do it in the normal search? >>> >>>Carlos >> >>It would depend on what the programmer's objective was. If the objective were >>merely to increase the strength of the program, then you are probably right. >>But if the objective were to make the product more attractive to the potential >>customers, then maybe not. There is a tradeoff between making the program >>stronger or making it better in some other way. > > >I'm not sure I follow. How would pondering in a bizarre way make the program >more attractive, assuming it beats you badly no matter _how_ it ponders? Well, what I was thinking about when I wrote that was pretty much influenced by Scheidl's comment "with more knowledge, possibly creating plans even, or more selective." In my mind, at least, his words conjured up the idea that a more human-like or interesting performance could be obtained. Maybe Scheidl did not do justice to the possibilities! Perhaps some other kind of computations might be done during the "pondering" period [when playing against those "amateurs"] which would not elicit the label "bizarre." Different programs are said, here at CCC, to have different "personalities." Also, some are perceived to be better in closed positions, for example. I would like to see a program which would be more able to handle a wider range of situations, or at least as well as any other program. I hasten to add that this is not to disparage the current crop of computer programs, which are amazing indeed. But, if you would "buy into" the truly radical idea that making a chess program stronger is not the only reasonable objective, then Scheidl's ideas might make sense. I know it is considered "taboo" to talk about improvements to chess engines other than increasing the engine's strength. But . . . guess who is paying for those programs? The average rating of the customers must be below 1600!
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.