Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 10:50:40 02/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2002 at 07:03:20, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On February 03, 2002 at 06:23:17, Uri Blass wrote: >>I believe that gignatic opening books are counter productive for chess programs. > >this is my opinion too. >therefore i like the idea to start from a different position than our >classic chess position. > >>I saw cases when programs blundered only because of the fact that the move was >>in book. > >exactly what makes me angry too. i have seen SO MANY games played , on >autoplayers, where the engines had NO influence in the game because of shit >opening-lines. >this is not chess. it is arranged chess. >and arranged chess is NO chess. I don't disagree with you looking at chess variants because there is some aspect of chess that you don't like, especially for computer matches. But I disagree when you try to make "Fischer random" chess sound more like the genuine article than classical chess. Technically speaking, there is only one version of chess - the game outlined by the traditional rules of chess. And like it or not, these rules allow openings to be prepared/memorised beforehand by humans and computers. It is part of the game; it always has been; and always should be. Anyway, I don't believe for one minute that chess is "dead" because the openings have been "played out". Maybe Bobby Fischer is running out of new ideas but thankfully many other players aren't. I also disagree that getting computers to play Fischer random chess is a good way to test their strengths at *chess*. For example, what if a program understands very well about the pros and cons of a fianchetto bishop. Such knowledge won't be so effective in Fischer Random chess because there will be less opportunities to fianchetto a bishop. There are many other chunks of knowledge that don't apply so much in Fischer Random chess, so it's not a good comparison. Remember, knowledge is a big part of playing chess, for humans and computers. Gordon > >here bobby fischer is completely right. this counts for computerchess too. > >a game of chess that is arranged, is NO game of chess. it has no competition >anymore. >it is dead. > > > >>I believe that it is better to use a smaller opening book when every move in the >>book was analyzed by chess programs and not a gignatic opening book. > >i see it the same. but chess programmers think different. i wonder why. >i think they are concentrated to much on WINNING. and they don't care HOW >to win. > >i am interested in seeing the engine WIN from a balanced position. >i am not interested to see anyone win from a won position. > >thats the idea of sports. that the chances are the same for every participant. >if a soccer match would start with one team having 5 goals in beforehand, nobody >would like to watch it. > >but in chess, or computerchess, we watch the engines replay silly moves out of >the mind of idiots. > > >>Uri
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.