Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 14:21:06 05/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1998 at 16:03:32, Mark Young wrote: >Im sorry to say, but the reason nobody seems to care is that CSTAL is a >weak program. Yes the program has its good points. But when you look at >the whole program it does not play strong chess. It does not play well >against strong humans or computers. The only reason I know that people >like it is because it does play a human style and the program is >beatable. > >I think CSTAL is a bold step in computer chess programing. I hope the >program will keep getting better. Hi Mark: Naturally, I fully rejects your notion of CSTAL being "weak". Maybe it is so compared with computers, but not againts human chess players. Perhaps this is a matter of definitions and experiences: my definition of strenght in a game is not a degree of perfection in sheer analytical terms, but of results. And MY experience against CSTAL is that I feel it a lot stronger than other more perfect programs that does not commit so much mistakes BUT also does not push you against the ropes until you breakdown and commits a worst mistake than CSTAL and you lose. I get a lot better results against Junior than against CSTAL. Junior is the champ, but his kind of game let me room to manouvre and do my thing; CSTAL does not. At the end I get many draws and victories against Fritz 5, the top program according SSDF; against CSTAL I have got only loses. So, it is very strong to me. Matter of styles. Perhaps you have the opposite experience. Cheers Fernando
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.