Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:57:02 06/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2004 at 17:58:49, Tord Romstad wrote: >On June 05, 2004 at 13:06:21, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On June 05, 2004 at 11:18:49, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>> >>>>But even if it is not a lot of work, why do it if nobody cares? Jorge is the >>>>only person who has expressed any kind of interest in my FRC engine. >> >>If 1 in 50 are interested in FRC, isn't that still 1 in 50? > >I think the ratio is much less than 1 in 50. Let's make a really silly >estimate: > >There are about 300 public chess engines, and about 10 public FRC endgames. >If we assume that the interest in both games were equally big, I would expect >to receive about 30 times as many e-mails from the FRC crowd than from the >chess crowd (because the chess crowd has no good reason to be very >interested in my particular engine when there are so many stronger engines >around). But the truth is that I receive about 100 times more e-mails about >chess than about FRC. This indicates that perhaps 1 in 3000 is interested in >FRC. Hard to say how popular it is. I know some chess clubs have special tournaments with FRC or just a "theme" evening now and then where they might play a specific opening or FRC or something. 10 supporting engines of 300 is also pretty good, actually that about 1/30. >>Perhaps 1 in 30 are interested in an SMP engine, but SMP is 1000 times harder to >>implement so if you want to do something for the customers, why not begin with >>FRC. > >Another reason why I think this comparison is flawed is that the interest in SMP >is likely to grow when more customers get dual-CPU computers. Yes but so far that hasn't happened, so for now I don't think it is flawed. >At the moment >there is no reason to believe that the interest in FRC will grow dramatically. I think it will grow, just not dramaticly and I don't think it will ever become more popular than old chess. >>Perhaps, but what about the title of "computer FRC world champion"? :) > >Right now, it wouldn't be a prestigious title at all. If we organized an FRC >world >championship tomorrow, the chances that you or I will be the winner are quite >good. I doubt that people will rush to buy our engines because of that. :-) No but if Tiger participated and won there would be prestige (the average wouldn't know it only beat us:). >Given a few weeks or months of preparation, the competition would almost >certainly be harder. If some of the top commercials had any interest in >participating, they would of course beat us easily. But I really doubt if >they would bother to come. Yeah, they don't even bother to show up at the ICGA championship ;) >>Honestly I don't think winning WCCC matters, what matters is getting a match >>against Kasparov. WCCC doesn't seem to be opening that door. > >Winning the WCCC is often what opens the door to getting a match against >Kasparov. I cannot remember any engine which has never won a world >championship title which has played a match against a top 10 GM. AFAIK only Fritz and Junior has played matches against top 5 players. Maybe Rebel has too, but would have been before my time I think. I really want to see ICGA and FIDE arrange a match between Shredder (or who ever wins this year) and the FIDE champion before I can take the title seriously. The winner should simply have the right to a match against a top 5 player. At least for as long as the humans still have a chance at winning. >>I think WCCC is mostly a gettogether for programmers, the "title" can't be that >>important or we would see Tiger, The King, Rebel, Ruffian and the others >>fighting for it too. > >With the exception of The King, I don't think any of these engines sell as much >as Fritz, Junior or Shredder. You might be right. They are currently higher rated on SSDF, and Fritz and Junior has had super GM matches recently, so that a few other reasons why they might be selling well. >>I don't know how many times I've walked into opening traps against 1400 rated >>players :) >>As soon as they are out of the opening they start to throw away pieces to 2-3 >>move combinations though. > >Then you should just take them out of book immediately. The last serious game >I played, a team event about 5 years after I stopped playing chess voluntarily, >was >against a player rated around 1500-1600. I really didn't want a theoretical >struggle, because I hadn't pushed a pawn or opened a chess book for years. >After some thought, I played 1. Nc3, and won easily. Of course 1. Nc3 doesn't >offer quite the same chances of fighting for an opening advantage as 1. e4 or >1. d4, but it is safe to bet that a 1500 player isn't able to refute it. You know you are right about that, I found that out too. I never play a long sicilian line against them, there is no reason why I should allow them to get to move 15 safely by following some theoretical line. I play the rare stuff, the stuff they probably, hopefully, don't know about. >>If FRC is broing then Chess is boring, because it was never intended to be a >>variant as such. FRC is what you end up with, when you take "chess minus opening >>theory". The whole idea is to change as little as possible so it reamains the >>_same_ game, only one "problem" removed. > >In my eyes, the "problem" you remove is the single big advantage classical chess >has compared to the countless other chess variants. Chess has a rich culture, >tradition and history. It is very fascinating to study chess games during the >last >150 years and see how the opening ideas have developed, and how the top players >constantly manage to churn out new ideas in openings which has been analysed >for decades. Watching positions familiar from classic old games by Tal or >Botvinnik gives a feeling of history which you just don't get if all the games >are >played from randomly chosen positions. I find it more intersting to let the >players choose the battleground than to roll a dice. I think a lot of players can agree to that, the history in chess is great. I just don't like the thought of my opponent standing on the shoulders of giants. I want him to think for himself, otherwise I'm really playing Tal here and not 1400 Elo "Michael Nielsen" :) The beauty of the game to me has always been in the way two people can get mentally connected, it's like they are communicating in an abstract language over the board, "do you see my threat, do you see my plan, can you pridict my next move", etc. That's what makes the game so thrilling, it's just two people thinking hard, trying to outsmart eachother. :) >Another asset of playing the games from an old, well-known starting position >is that some extremely complicated and interesting positions are analyzed to >an enormous depth, which would otherwise never have been achieved. Have >you read "Fire on Board", Alexei Shirov's game collection? If not, I would >strongly recommend it. The games and analysis is fabulous, and it is clearly >the best and most entertaining chess book I have read in recent years. One >of my favorite parts of the book is the chapter about the Botvinnik variation >in the Semi-Slav, where Shirov has annotated all his games in this wild and >spectacular opening. If we had all played FRC instead of classical chess, >something similar this chapter wouldn't have been possible. No doubt >games would be played with positions just as beautiful as the Botvinnik >variation, but the positions would be quickly forgotten and never analyzed >deeply or understood very well. It's no doubt an interesting read, but you really want to experience it for yourself over a real game. >To a certain extent, the reason for our disagreement might be a difference >in perspective. I no longer play chess, and I probably never will. I follow >the chess news, and I love to study game collections and endgame books, >and to analyze endgames and complex tactical endgames. I don't think it is impossibe to do in FRC, you could still follow interesting games and deep tactical struggles, there just wouldn't be a lot of opening theory. The game comments would start at move 1 and not move 15 :) >>Most chess players like the game and are not interested in strange variants, yet >>they might still be bored with all the theory, those are the ones who should be >>looking towards FRC for a solution. > >Another solution is to play 1. Nc3, or some other sound but unorthodox >move a few moves later. As I have stated earlier, most of what is known as >"opening theory" isn't really theory at all, but just a mix of tradition and >vague educated guesses. Nobody forces you to follow the theory. You >might lose games because you follow the theory without remembering >it or understand it well enough, but you won't often lose games because >you don't play the thoroughly analyzed lines at all. Yes, that is possible, but you often end up losing a lot of terrain. >>I tried a few games of Gothic, in the middle of the opening I was suddenly mated >>in 1. I never saw it comming, I just couldn't picture the attacked squares of >>the new pieces. I don't know how long it takes to adjust to that, but if feels >>like a whole new game to me, quite far from chess. > >I think it's really cool. :-) > >All the well-known tactical motifs and endgame rules of classical chess are >still there, but in addition you discover lots of entirely new tactics, mating >patterns and endgames which you had never dreamed of before. It takes >a lot of time to get used to it, but to me the game gets richer and more >interesting. I don't mind feeling like a beginner again. > >Hexagonal chess is even more interesting, because the more complicated >geometry of the board adds new possibilities even for the familiar old >chess pieces. Rooks, bishops and knights can triangulate, and kings can >sometimes catch up with passed pawns from behind by moving in a >diagonal zigzag pattern. The endgame in particular becomes much more >interesting than in any rectangular form of chess. Hehe, okay glad you like it. I think it's too different from chess though. Maybe I would like it if I gave enough time, I like playing cards too so I'm not that picky :) -S. >Tord
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.