Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 03:13:27 12/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2000 at 05:09:15, Torstein Hall wrote: >On December 12, 2000 at 02:28:40, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>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 > >I think Century 3 will be closer to the top, or on the top, of the SSDF list >than many here belive. It plays in a style that I feel is more human GM like >than a lot of other programs, maybe because of a lot of knowledge. Anyway, the >results posted by SSDF members here at CCC looks very good so far! If thats >because of, or in spite of all the chess knowledge in there, I do not know. > >Torstein In my private auto232 games Rebel Century 3 has 2 "angst-gegners", Fritz and Tiger even Rebel-Tiger I. Let's wait if the SSDF reports similar results. If true Century's results will drop. 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.