Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 02:55:39 05/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 1998 at 22:15:48, Fernando Villegas wrote: > The practical point here is to >recognize that average top fast searchers programs are enough decent in >his positional evaluuations to get results and so can be concluded that >positional evaluation can, in principle, be gotten with other tools than >what we call knowledge in the classic sense of a lot of theroy and >general principles encased in the source code. >fernando When I replay Fritz5' championship games from Paris i don't see ANY understanding of positional chess. The only thing i see when I replay the games is stupidy. Artificial stupidity.. Weak opponents, weak results against them. They had a fast machine, big hash and all programmers with them (to find bugs e.g.). In most of the games Fritz5 showed pretty stupid 0.00 lines or repetitions in the main-line that were very stupid. My fritz5 is doing the same when losing or drawing. And I don't know WHY. From the faces of the programmers in Paris one could see that they also did not understand WHY this strange draw-behaviour appeared. Junior or Virtual chess2 played much more interesting in Paris. I am a little concernend that my impression of the above 2 programs from Paris has not fullfilled at my home. Junior plays weaker than in Paris and Virtual2 plays less speculative or less agressive than I have seen it in paris. When i play with Hiarcs or Mchess or Rebel i have the feeling that they play positional. Or that they smell it. I don't have this idea when I replay games with Fritz5. Even Nimzo98 shows sometimes more understanding (IMO) than Fritz5.
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.