Author: stuart taylor
Date: 00:46:34 11/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
> >>>There are people interested by rating points. It's my work to satisfy them as >>>well as people interested by playing style. >> >>Most people are probably interested in both, as I am and I know you are. Why >>should you accept a dichotomy that doesn't make any sense? > > > >I used to believe in strength only, but I have recently learned that it is also >possible to dramatically change the style without significantly weakening a >program. > >This was a novelty for me. Before that I thought that any attempt to >specifically change the playing style would result in a badly "untuned" engine, >a much weaker one. > >So let's go for both strength and style. Why not? > > > > Christophe Isn't the main interest in playing style, for the purpose of playing strength? When ever I read "human-like", I understood it to mean "likelihood of being genuinely stronger than merely computer-like". If I saw that the results of a program described as such, were low (with the arguable exception of CSTal)I saw it as a figment of the imagination. At any rate, an inference of weakness, and its humanness to be hardley worth the software it's written on. Maybe, other peoples minds work diffrently, however. S.Taylor
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.