Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:12:21 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 05:44:37, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Robert Hyatt on December 12, 1999 at 10:19:26: > >>>>But it clearly isn't doing _nearly_ as well vs humans (even with anti-human on) >>>>as it is doing against other programs... >>> >>>Do you have some game examples that supports your strong judgement? >>> >>>Ed > > >>Somebody else already posted a really bad result vs a humaon on FICS (winning >>1/3, losing 2/3, against a player that isn't a "master" of anything but anti- >>computer chess. I have watched "other" players (not often as I don't watch >>very often, except when crafty/scrappy is idle) also cause problems... This >>is the most striking example of comp-vs-comp strength being _far_ different >>than comp-vs-human strength that I recall in recent years... > >This specific case wasn't an issue of playing strength but time-control which >in the meantime is corrected. > >I am still waiting for the game examples that supports your judgement. > Keep waiting. I looked thru several 'shutka' games. In a couple time was the problem, but if you look carefully, _many_ games were _not_ lost on time. They were lost OTB. However, I hardly consider it my job to point out where it is playing poorly in the endgame or whatever (oops, almost said too much already). Just don't make the mistake of thinking that this was 60 losses on time, 30 wins OTB. That wasn't the case _at all_. > >>But as I mentioned before, remember that "I am 10 years behind the commercial >>programs". I don't see any reason to point out the weaknesses of someone that >>is 10 years ahead of me, wouldn't you agree? But, in fact, the problems are >>very obvious, so my analysis isn't needed anyway... > >It took me some time to figure what you are talking about. A few short remarks: >a) it wasn't said that way, b) action forces reaction, c) let's live in peace. > > >>Fixing the problems is going to adversely affect its currently great >>anti-computer style of play, however... > >Oh come on. > >Ed No "oh come on" here. It needs knowledge in a few significant places. I know of no way to implement this kind of knowledge without losing significant speed. And that is going to make a difference in how it plays against computers. The "holes" will become apparent after playing a few IM/GM players... Right now I have not seen it ever refuse to win a pawn, given the chance. Which might be the perfect strategy against computers. But against some GM/IM players I know, it is asking for trouble. _particularly_ at fast time controls, which is how most programs get used...
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.