Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 08:28:32 07/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2001 at 10:24:49, James T. Walker wrote: >Hello Mogens, Hello Jim, >Why put artificial requirements on a computer? Why should a computer be >required to meet some "arbitrary" requirements like "all types of positions". That's not an artificial requirement. The positions (can) arise on the board and if it's a weak spot it'll be exploited. Asking a chess player (GM or otherwise) to refrain from adopting a strategy according to the opponent as is nonsensical to the extreme. >Humans are not required to play unfamiliar openings/lines except to the point >that their opponents can force them. They are only required to respond to the >opponents moves with the best move they can conjure up. This is all that should >be required of computers. Nothing in my response suggests otherwise. I oppose the exact same idea as you do. Noone is forcing the computer to do anything. If you read the thread, it's the other way around. >Play against the opponent. Exactly. That is why the strategic element shouldn't be removed. Playing boring chess against a computer program is still allowed. >Perhaps some GMs need to stick to what they know to be their best. Trying to >play in an "artificial" style could lead to poor results also. Just another >opinion. That is also true. However, as mentioned previously, many GMs use chess playing programs scarcely. In that case using a few anti-computer pointers might not be the best of ideas. But sticking to your usual game can also be a disaster as proved by Rodriguez. Generally, I have the impression that only the top players have any real knowledge about chess programs. It would be interesting to know about the computer program knowledge of the players participating. Mogens.
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.