Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 12:13:01 06/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 2000 at 14:56:00, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On June 12, 2000 at 14:28:33, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>There definitely is. >> >>Every few weeks someone posts (pick one) >>a) using an opening book is cheating/illegal/evil >>b) using endgame databases is cheating/illegal/evil >>c) humans should be allowed to use computers when they play computers >>d) some other inane assertion >>e) all of the above >> >>Then a mess of people agree with him, a different mess of people disagree, >>eveybody yells at everybody for a few days, and then things go back to normal. >> >>-Tom > >That's very convincing except that only option a) has anything to do with the so >called anti-opening book camp. Very few of those arguments have, to my >knowledge, been about cheating, illegality or just pure evil. As far as I'm >concerned, I just wonder why it's so complicated to make a program play chess >from the first to the final move on its own. I thought that was the whole idea >behing computer chess, but I could be wrong of course. I would think that it's a >challenge for programmers to make a program do exactly that. Is it just too >difficult? > >Best wishes... >Mogens It takes weeks of analysis to find some cool and sound novelty in opening. After you play it - everybody picks it up (especially if you are some acknowledged player, or publish it in Informant). How do you expect a comp to find those things OTB? Lines some 10-15 moves long, like in Cohrane or Vienna or Botvinnik slav or Qxb2 Najdorf or you_name_it... Besides - why should a program think over and over again about same position it played already a dozen times? -Andrew-
This page took 0.01 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.