Author: Mats Winther
Date: 10:20:44 04/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
Thank you for your testing proposal and those questions about the autoplayer mystery. I too am bewildered by this and would like to know more. Concerning your view of the Fritz module: (discussed at length earlier) Has there been any doubt that Fritz5 is one of the top programs? The argument is whether it is the best or not. Apart from this, since you infer that Fritz5 is good positionally, what do you then mean by "knowledgebased programs"? I thought that Hiarcs and Rebel had more knowledge and therefore play better positionally than Fritz5 whilst the latter compensates this with longer variations. So then Fritz5 should play less good positional chess than the others. I can't draw any other conclusion. When we talk about "good chess" we don't really refer to the end result. In fact, Fritz5 sometimes (not always!) definitely plays bad chess that is positionally weak - typical for engines with less knowledge. You are quite right in saying that this occurs to other engines too. I have positionally horrid games by Hiarcs too. But this should in theory occur more often with Fritz5 and it does too in practice, I would say. We live in the positional era of chess when "good chess" is defined as positionally refined chess. Then it is obvious that Fritz5 plays less good chess than certain others (drawn from a large amount of games). But I take it that you regard tactical trickery as "good chess" too? But isn't it better to use the traditional definition of "good chess". Mats Winther
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.