Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:22:09 10/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2001 at 13:36:08, Alan Grotier wrote: >Here's hoping everyone does not run for the door when whish list is mentioned. > >As we all know present chess engines can just about trounce everybody. >But for the initiated and passionate few,stronger engines are not desired by >those who are genuinely interessed in the game of chess,who like to play chess >and who want to progress. The need for stronger engines for some of these people, in my opinion is very great. It's the knowledge which is desired, which includes the application of that knowledge. And that is something which the end result would mean "strong". NOT as in super strong mints which almost burn your mouth out! but greater accuracy, insight and truth, and more educational (instructional). It's easy to have a program which beats most people, but plays like a beginner, only that it sees the tactics straight. If an expert loses to that engine, he feels he was cheated out by a beginner, but if he works very hard and wins, he feels that all he did was to be careful, and the engine committed suicide by itself! (but it was not due to his true skill). Also, if you are SURE there is an ingenius combination lying somewhere in a position, but can't see the best way to try out possibilities, so most of the programs today will still not find even something which IS there, within a reasonable amount of time. It would not even find the best move to inch closer towards that combination. That's a very big shame in my eyes! With greater depth and applied knowledge (=strength, for sure), it might see more of these great things, and even know how to strengthen its position in preparation for some ingenius concepts. Also, I understand, it is necesary for playing online, as unfortunately, there's not much point if not computer aided, as, according to Uri Blass, most seem to use computer aid when playing online. > >By these comments I do not mean stop the strength progress.On the contrary, >I can easely see that developments in this area could lead to insights >elswere : better games at lower strengths for example. Yes, perhaps the lower strength levels might then be more intelligent, and realistic. Not like extra strong mints on the one hand, and absolute baby play on the other. > >By all means let's have very strong programs: mais "de grâce" progammers >gives us,the less gifted,the opportunity to progress. Perhaps stronger programs can give even more ballanced and interesting, even easier (though more just) lower levels. > >Chess Master is a perfect example of how to cater to those under 2000 ELO. >We need more of this TYPE of program. >CM analysis presentation is much better because it gives not only who's winning >and loosing,but in addition what has been accomplished.Eg better pawn struture, >better mobility etc.And it can present this if required with the spoken word. >This type of flexibilty is what we need. It's an excellent idea, almost like guidance from a human expert. But the assesment is, unfortunately extremely unfoccused to the actual position at hand. It doesn't go anywhere near pointing out what's important to know in that position. It might even say that now you have a better pawn structure, mobility etc. when the next move is forced check mate, to you! > >If it is any encouragement to those who design chess engines I have improved >200 Elo thanks to you. That is due to practice, and COULD be from the entertainment aspect of CM which kept you interested, and awake. It may have opened your mind to ideas you hadn't thought of, but also would have distracted you from what you WERE thinking coherently, more often! > >I enjoy chess but I want to understand why I loose. >More importantly I want to win! I'd really want a much more intelligent chatter, or, natural language analysis. Also, a very well graded ELO system wher you can type in the desired ELO which you'd like the program to play at. In that way, you could really monior you progress. The elo which you type in should be applicable even with a few different styles. I don't see that it IS like that at the momment, in CM8000. And, for all this, the overall strength, if much greater, would prove the corectness of the other features, and make analysis and learning from program MUCH more worthwhile. I feel that STRENGTH COMES FIRST. And even if CM is not intended for top strength necesarily, CM6000 WAS that, more or less, and each upgrade MUST include a noticeable increase. And If that had been the case, I believe that it would sill be amongst the very top. So if CM9000 could be 3 significant levels above CM6000, that would really make me happy, and be, I think, a very good idea too! I own CM8000, but it isn't quite what I had hoped for. But I'd be very enthusiastic to buy CM9000 (too) if that WILL be. S.Taylor
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.