Author: Albert Silver
Date: 09:35:28 09/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2005 at 19:21:03, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>Dann:
>I do not remember I have ever said that I positivively want weaker engines. That
>I am beginning a fight against strong engines. I just say that the field of
>frienliness is still very wide and has lot of terrain to cope with. And to say,
>as many do, that "go and get chessmaster" is not a good answer becaue CM, not
>matter how much they have done on that, are still very far of what I am
>thinking as desirable.
>Nevertheles, nobody cares about what I am thinking in that respect. Just they at
>once diomiss me as a stupid guy that should simply get chessmaster and go away.
>fernando
I've read this thread and followed the discussion. I'm afraid I tend to agree
more with Amir than Mig on this regarding Chessbase. The question really is very
much one of market, and Chessbase has clearly defined their market segment for
many many years. After all, their first program wasn't some super user-friendly
chess-playing program, it was Chessbase, a database program for the serious
player. They added an engine, the precursor to Fritz, again, a tool for the
serious player. The purpose being to help the serious player find the truth of
the position. Their targetted market has ALWAYS been the serious player. Even if
that 'serious player' is only 1800, the fact is that that serious player wants a
database, classic games, the best analysis possible, etc. Sure he wants more
than that as you said, but overall, strength has been a huge factor when
choosing the engine. It makes sense too, and it isn't merely a question of 20
more points in the stratosphere. Don't misunderstand me, the strength increase
IS important, but it isn't the number 20, it is in the lines and analysis it
provides. As you well know, some engines are very bad in endgames, others not.
Others are brilliant in tactical positions, but are much weaker in positional
play. Even when all these engines are over 2600. It is their differences that
are the reason behind the engine market beyond mere rating points on the SSDF
list. In an endgame, I am far more likely to choose Shredder over Fritz to
analyze it. In a tactical middlegame, I am more likely to use Fritz.
Chessbase has always been the provider of the best analysis tools for such
purposes, hence the outcries on the Chessbase engine monopoly, etc. When you
look at a position, you don't want to think that the engine you are using may be
missing a brilliant reply because you didn't let it run 5 minutes. You'd rather
choose an engine that can find it in 30 seconds. I don't know about you, but
when I go to my club, anytime I have find myself talking about an engine or
playing program with a player rated more than 1800, the question of its strength
ALWAYS comes up.
As to teaching a player to play or improve their game, I'm afraid Dann is right.
It is entirely a GUI issue, so claiming they will no longer try to make the
engine stronger on account of this, really is a huge smokescreen IMO. If that is
the purpose, then frankly the only approximate way of doing this IMO, would be
to give the GI access to the values of the eval parameters, such as open file,
piece development, etc. so that if one element were being given clear priority,
such as the open file, the GUI would say "Of prime importance here is to place
the rook on this open file". Still, this has nothing to do with making the
engine stronger or not.
Sure, if you only plan to play against it, and never consult it for analysis,
then you may say that those 50 elo points aren't a big deal, since either way
you will be beat badly if you play it at full strength. Still, if you have the
choice, would you prefer to play (and lose) against Kasparov or against Dreev?
Albert
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.