Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:53:08 02/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2002 at 16:15:20, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On February 18, 2002 at 14:22:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I _specifically_ mentioned the two programs he quoted. They are missing >>basic knowledge, such as drawn endings and so forth. Yes they play actively >>in the middlegame, but the point for playing actively is to catch your >>opponent in a short-sighted mistake. DB would likely not be guilty of such. >>And if you can't win in the middlegame, you had _better_ be good in the >>ending because they certainly were. And neither of the two programs mentioned >>impress me as being super endgame players. Very few do in fact... > >Blah. I don't agree with your assumption that active play only >pays off versus an opponent making short-sighted mistakes, though >I can't think of any way to prove one or another. It seems intuitive to me. Active play generally means weakening your position to create play against the opponent. If the plan doesn't work out, you end up eating the weaknesses you created and you lose endings that you hoped you wouldn't ever reach. > >As for the endgame, even if they are missing some basic knowledge, >it certainly doesn't seem to hurt them much... Not against humans, >not against other computers. (...and I won't speculate about DB) The faster searchers are doing _well_ against other computers that are slower. Check out the SSDF lists recently. But the speculative play doesn't work so well if your opponent sees far more than you do, and more accurately to boot. > >-- >GCP
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.