Author: Mike S.
Date: 15:10:03 11/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2000 at 17:44:00, Bruce Moreland wrote: >(...) > >People don't want to simply get whacked by their programs, they want to get >whacked well. They want to feel like they've been whacked by a human, so they >can practice against the computer and feel like they are practicing against a >strong human. The idea being, of course, that eventually they can beat strong >humans, which will make them strong humans, too. And that is their overall >goal. > >The concern is to avoid moves that look computery, and it's been considered by >many that a brainless eval results in computery looking moves. > >Some people have also made claims that a smarter program will perform better >given a hardware increase. > >And so on, it goes on forever, although people rarely talk about subjective >stuff like contrasting styles or the "educational" strength of chess programs. >All you hear about are match results and computer vs computer ratings and other >silliness. There are lots of specific topics that can be discussed for instance >how easy it is to king-attack various programs, or which programs will trade >into a lost K+P ending rather than keeping the last pair of rooks on, or the >benefits of various pawn structures, but none of this gets discussed. > >I think silliness is fine, but we've had years of it here, there are a lot of >people spending a lot of time spinning their wheels. > >bruce Well spoken, very well spoken! Thousands of games, but only a handful of interesting observations (if any), aside from the pure result figures. I'm tired of that too. Especially, I think we must overcome the "rating list thinking" probably. Regards, M.Scheidl
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.