Author: chris sergel
Date: 14:55:45 03/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
I've played two informal games with S. Ham, and have corresponded with him. I know he has a theory of making "the absolute best objective move." I've disagreed with him about this and this has been discussed. I feel I can't probably find the absolutly best move move anyway and want to play a move more in the style as to how I want to play the game. S. Ham will play against the computer as he would play against a person and this makes the games interesting. I think the flaw in the match is that there are two objectives to the match and these objectives are not necessarily together. One objecive is to say - "how will chess programs do against a stong correspondence player?" in other words - who will win Another objective (which I think is causing some conflict) is - "what are the processes that go on in the human and the computer in a match of correspondence player against computer? - what are there thinking processes" - in other words - what are they thinking I believe these are both worthwhile goals and I enjoy seeing what the computer thinks, and I enjoy seeing what Ham thinks of the positions. Perhaps it would have been better to attempt to achieve these two different objectives in two different matches.
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.