Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 02:53:59 09/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 1999 at 22:39:09, eric guttenberg wrote: >If there is any reliable data showing that CST can even hold its own with >H7.32 in a significant number of games, I will be surprised to see it. > > >eric Could you (or Mark or anyone else...) who have seen CSTal play alot, tell me why you think it is weaker than e.g. Hiarcs? (I don't own a copy). Is it because it goes for unsound kingside attacks with silly sacrifices, or is it just weaker in general? I always thought that it would be interesting to see a CSPetrosian, since that style might be better suited to the programming technique used in CSTal (not that I know anything about it, except for the low NPS). Even if it is significantly weaker at the moment, I think it is strong enough to prove a point, namely that programs written in a "non-orthodox" way can play good chess. Since this seems to be a program developed by one person (?) there should be room for many improvements and, who knows, that approach might be more successful than present data indicates. I mean, imagine ten programmers representing this approach exchanging ideas here at CCC. It would probably give a marginal effect much bigger than for the discussions taking place here now (not that I have anything against them, just an illustration). Ralf
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.