Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:36:14 05/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1998 at 17:21:06, Fernando Villegas wrote: >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 I agree with you. I was giving my take on why people seem not to care. People want programs that win playing computers and humans. I do think CSTAL is strong, but the program does need more tactical speed.
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.