Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 08:36:56 08/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2000 at 11:05:59, Christian Pike wrote: >On August 24, 2000 at 10:47:34, Gordon Rattray wrote: > >>I totally disagree. The tournament winner should be the program that plays the >>best chess. Playing the opening is part of a chess game! > >but the opening is mostly not chosen by the program itself, but in preparation >by the advisor. So, do you think that endgame table bases should be removed too? Where do you draw the line? Do we only have programs that figure everything out for themselves except for the rules of chess? Human chess players don't figure everything out for themselves - we use the advice of others in the opening as well as other phases of the game. It is up to us to decide whether to use advice as it may be good or bad, that's just part of the challenge of chess so it should not be removed. >> You can't just skip >>this phase by starting with a chosen position - that's not true chess. > >i would throw the opponent early out of book. not setup a special position. >but throwing them early out of book with a rare move. >then we can see how strong the engines are. >the advisors often forget that the engine has to win that game, not themselves. >and that the opponent has also a prepared opening book. > >what i often see >is that both programs follow very deep lines. nobody (neither team A nor >team B ) has really control over the situation, and any strange line >comes on board. i see no sense in such a russian-roulette. >it may a good random-generator, but i would like to see >rebel or tiger win or lose their games because of the engines strength >and not because of some weir lines. It is not russian roulette. Programmers have control over the book that their program uses. The moves are not random. >later - when i buy the programs, i buy a "strong" championship winner >that plays lousy but had a good opening-preparation ! how nice :-))) Do you honestly believe that a program can win a "strong" championship by having a really good opening book but play badly afterwards. I very much doubt it. >> A good >>chess player needs to play the opening well and this should be tested during a >>game. > >this is a tournament. it has special preparation. it does not always show >strength, it often shows how clever ONE advisor is. i would not call this >strength. call it cleverness. smartness. but strength ? strength is >something that stays for longer than ONE tournament.- > > >>Also, it is a big part of the "computer chess challenge" for programmers to >>decide how their program should play the opening. If someone finds a way of >>making their program play the opening better than another, this aspect should be >>taken into account, i.e. a full game of chess must be played. > > >but i see always tiger / rebel losing due to opening stuff. If they do, then they have weaknesses in their ability to play chess so they deserve to lose. >we should dope jeroen ! > >>Gordon
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.