Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 14:38:05 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 16:35:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >It is not difficult to let one engine play 3 or 4 moves in a row (selected at >random), then the other one takes over, and so on. > >I bet you would never see the same game twice. > > > > Christophe thats true. but the result would not be a strong program. such a program (using 2 engines) would play like a preprocessor. in fact it would place pieces somewhere, and later bring the pieces back. this is the way fritz and nimzo played a few years ago. even those programs have overcome that (st)age. you cannot (IMO) make a program that gives up an idea for another, and again gives up an idea for another, to get a senseful game in the end: thats exactly the way the dump searchers work. they do not find a plan. they play not a game of chess but they play MOVES. but playing moves , one after another is not playing a game of chess. its a kind of emulation. you can get strong elo if you have good hardware and a good tree. but it is not chess. it is an emulation of it. its computerchess. chess is something else. you cannot devide style and strength. IMO.
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.