Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 23:36:16 03/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 08, 2000 at 15:21:34, KarinsDad wrote: >Don't you mean very non-human-like? no - i mean the opposite. >A human would (usually) know that it is playing a computer and that he/she must >make good tactical decisions in order to win. CSTal does not know who it is >playing, hence, it plays non-human, non-computer like chess (i.e. some form of >quasi programatic approximation in between human and computer like behavior). cstal plays like the game allows it to play. >Does CSTal have a mechanism to tell it that it is playing against a computer and no. >hence, it should play tactically smarter and time control smarter? Or maybe a >way to indicate the approximate ELO of it's opponent. Human-like play also >consists of playing different based on perceived strengths and weaknesses of >your opponent; not just playing randomly stupid. cstal does not play stupid. :-) >I mean, what good is playing sort of like a human against a computer? and ? it doesn't matter. only the result counts :-) you can shit on the desk as far as the result is ok, or ? :-) >>consider: only the result counts. >I'm glad to hear you say that! ;) thought so. >KarinsDad :)
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.