Author: Peter Berger
Date: 13:50:30 12/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
I can't understand your point of view . You say Fritz doesn't understand a certain type of positions well . OK . You probably will agree that still it remains at or near the top . Isn't it clear that it understands some other positions better than the rest then ? If a program by "bean-counting" delivers a surprising mate in 12 outsearching the opponent badly , why is this less valuable than judging some promising king attack with +5 although not being able to see it to the end ? If you look for data supporting my point of view : just look at any tactical testsuite and see who is at the top of the solvers . I think the Fritz way is only less popular because it is less similar to the human style where a program like Tal seems more human as its strengths and weaknesses correspond better with the ones you know from yourself. So : if this is the case it is simply a matter of taste : do you like what you get with Fritz :-) ? Do you prefer Bach, Wagner or Dittersdorf :-) ? Another question is : which program is best for analysis ; but again : cruel tactics _is_ a part of the game . And if others with new paradigms will take over I wouldn't be too surprised if the following Fritz version suddenly displayed some most surprising new-paradigm behaviour .
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.