Author: Don Dailey
Date: 16:57:24 07/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
----------- SNIP --------- >>That's how I feel about it. In chess it takes two to tango, >>the computer gets a chance to control the play too. >> > > >while this is true, the computer has only one "tango" it can dance to. It >won't self-modify as the games are repeated. It will learn to avoid losing >openings, but it won't learn to avoid losing "plans." I could show you about >500 different ways to transpose into a stonewall. Roman ragged hell out of me >about this until I simply decided to "teach" crafty about the stonewall system >directly. I've watched him do this to many programs also. And all he has to >do is to find different transpositions, even if he gives up a tempo or two >to accomplish it. I am glad you are finally comming around to my point of view on this one. When you say, "even if he gives up a tempo or two to accomplish it" you are hitting at the heart of the matter. And I don't care in the slightest if Roman can still beat the hell out of it. The point I DO CARE about is that Roman feels his best plan against the computer is to give up a couple tempo's to get a stonewall attack! I don't know about you, but if I didn't understand an opening very well I would be happy to be able to play it a couple tempo's up. If I was playing a grandmaster who was very likely to beat me in either case, I would still rather have the extra tempo's, but that's just me. And I would take some consolation in the fact that my opponent avoided objectively better lines to get me into this. It wouldn't matter to me whether he did this out of contempt for my ability to play that opening or out of respect for my ability to play the other lines, in either case I still have the advantage of the extra tempo's. - Don
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.