Author: Alvaro Rodriguez
Date: 11:04:53 05/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2000 at 13:52:56, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 20, 2000 at 13:16:29, blass uri wrote: > >Something tells me we've had this discussion before. Kinda deja-vuish :o). > >>Boris Galfend's opinion: >>main strenght of chess programs (Fritz, Junior etc) are outside the program >>itself. >> >>I disagree. >>The most simple programs can play well without book. > >Then what's the problem? Let it play without book and see what happens. It could >be interesting. > >>I think that forcing them to play without book is unfair because if they knew >>that they will be forced to play without book they would write their program in >>a different way. > >Then they should start writing their program in another way IMO. > >>I believe that it is possible to take advantage of the weakness of Junior by >>getting it out of book early(there are many ways to do it) but unfortunately the >>opponents do not prepare against Junior. > >If everything revolves around getting chess programs "out of book" then it's a >very artificial form of chess. I believe you said that chess programs can make >human players play better chess. The special kind of anti-computer chess style >won't do that, since it wouldn't be effective against most top human players. > >>I hope that the opponents will prepare against Junior in the next tournament and >>will force Amir Ban to fix the problem. > >I hope so too. > >>I do not like the fact that Junior does not know important things about the >>opening like not getting out with the queen early but I do not think it is fair >>to force Junior to play weak by creating new conditions that Junior is not ready >>for them. > >Since there were no conditions in the first place, they can't be broken. You're >inventing conditions that doesn't exist on paper, or anything else. > >>The programmers develop their program under some assumptions and it is simply >>unfair for them to change these assumptions. > >If it's their own assumptions then it's not unfair. > >Sincerely, >Mogens Computer opening books are based in games played by humans, so you can basically say that humans are responsible for the opening book of the computers. In that case, humans should "disable" their opening book also. The most "fair" thing to do is that the games between humans-computers are played from move 10-20 or so, of a well-known variation. The complaints will p stop about this issue, but I don´t think the programmers will agree on this. IF they agree, humans will probably complain about the endings instead.. IMHO Alvaro
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.