Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 12:19:07 02/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2000 at 13:24:19, Andrew Dados wrote: >I would say in above examples you try to play well, but beautiful? >Beauty is something beyond reason. Can KPK ending be beutiful? Nah.. it's >trivial. Lets add one more pawn.. can KPKP be beautiful... can KPNKP... etc. >At some point, by adding more and more pieces, we reach the stage which is >beyond TBs or _my_ ability to calculate to the end. Then 'educated guessing' >begins... and that guess can be cometimes beautiful to me. Right, I think this was my point. (sort of) >But while I know it's deterministic, and I'm only too stupid to solve given >position, I refrain from comparing computerchess styles... it's all series of >'if() then()' statements anyway :) Let's say you play against a program. The program finds ways to centralize its minor pieces and connect its rooks and mount a big kingside attack and push a passer and win. You think, "wow, this is a great program, it did all of this beautiful stuff." Now let's say you play against a different program. It doesn't connect its rooks or anything. But it wins anyway. You're probably not going to think it played beautifully. More than likely, you're going to be confused and bitter. So when comparing styles, I'd prefer the first program to the second one. -Tom
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.