Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 23:28:40 12/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2000 at 22:30:02, G. R. Morton wrote: >On December 11, 2000 at 19:49:35, Terry Ripple wrote: > >>On December 11, 2000 at 19:21:56, G. R. Morton wrote: >> >>>Century 3 is touted as a superb (the best?) positional chess player, which my >>>own non-scientific tests on well known GM actual game positions seem to bear >>>out. Are there are any formal positional test results? Does any strong player >>>(besides the reviews at the Rebel site) have an opinion Century 3’s positional >>>play as the best (whether or not it may make it to the SSDF top few)? >>------------- >>The SSDF list only proves that what ever program is on the top of the list was >>the best at that time in beating other chess programs under similar conditions >>but doesn't prove that it's the best at winning against very strong players at >>tournament time controls of 40 moves/2 hours. >> >>Rebel Century 3.0 was fine tuned to play it's best against strong human >>opponents and there for it is possible that it might not be the best program >>when it is matched against one of the other top programs. I believe that one of >>the reasons for this is that the more knowledge a program has it can't think as >>deep into the position because it is a slower thinker compared to the tactical >>monster "Fritz" that has less knowledge to slow it down, so it has more time to >>think deeper because of it's faster search. ( Just my opinion ) >> >>Regards,Terry >>Regards,Terry > >I think you’re right. Actually I’ve heard this opinion before: I recall someone >(Schroeder ?) having said that positional knowledge is worth only about another >ply or two of search depth. That may be true for winning against other >software, but not for the use of software as a sort of chess instructor >substitute. >Having a superb positional playing software, I believe, (even if it is not >among the top SSDF few) is more valuable for instructional purposes since it >would be plenty adequate for tactical instruction but yet provide one with lots >of examples of good positional play that a non-master needs to see in a variety >of positions. Good tactics can be seen and studied in a ton of books, CDs, etc, >but (non-trivial) maximal positional moves are not as readily to be seen. > >Regards, George I believe that marking a program as best positional player is something very subjective which hardly can be proofed. I have my own favorites and when I look at the evidence for my choices it is all very vague. I think that in the end it is all a matter of taste provided you had a good look at the program first. The latter IMO means you will have to play intensively with a program (months) before building a final opinion and even that is arbitrary and subjective :) Ed
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.