Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:09:34 12/30/97
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 1997 at 12:12:13, Chris Whittington wrote: > >Yes, but, even this has its weaknesses. > >ICC is mostly very fast games against low attention span humans who are >on ICC for some fun to play fast chess (accepted there are some strong >players who take it serious). > >The way to beat these humans is fast search and tactical trickery >(mostly). So, I'ld argue that ICC playing tends to produce programs that >go for the fast and deep solution, with a few positional fixes to deal >with positional stuff. > >Frankly, I don't really know what is the way to generate and then >quantify the chess program that's an answer for everything. My way has >been to try and seriously understand each position at each node, and to >be highly speculative - but this has its problems too. > >Chris Whittington If you use the data "right" this isn't a problem. IE I don't look at 75% of the games very carefully... except to cull the wins and keep the losses. I then look to see "why". But if you pick the right players, like Roman, Dlugy, Ricardi, anat, and GM's like those, you don't get many "blunders"... at least I don't see them. Yes I see a few, but I see some damned strong opposition as well. Fortunately, I can recognize blunders and toss those games out, but I can still learn from them if Crafty was in some sort of trouble... If you only count wins and losses, it's not so informative, but if you look at the games, you really begin to see why a GM is a GM, and a computer is *not* a GM... *yet*... And if you study these games, they offer a lot of info...
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.