Author: Martin Giepmans
Date: 04:36:36 02/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2002 at 05:32:44, Thorsten Czub wrote: >Firstival on has to say that Ed Schroeder has written on his web site that >Century4 plays not in the normal setting but in the anti-GM setting. > >I will not comment on this, since i do not have >enough experience in how this setting changes rebel century4 playing style >and strength. > >But what i can do is, to replay the >games with rebel-century4 macheide and other programs (on my Athlon C-1200 mhz). > > >1. >Macheide would have taken 12...Nxg3?! too (+0.36 for black). >Shredder6.32 (the leader of the ssdf-computer-rating-list) >would not have taken on g3 (0.06 for black Nxe5). >Fritz7.0.06 Nxe5 with -0.04 for black. >CSTal2.03 Nxe5 with +0.44 for black. >Gambit-Tiger14.6 Nxg3 with +0.12. > >2. >The next "strange" move is 13...Rc8?!. > >Macheide would have played 13...Nxe5 with +0.32 for black. >Shredder6.32 would have played 13...Nxe5 (+0.08 for white). >Fritz7.0.0.6 Nxe5 with +0.00. >CSTal2.03 Nxe5 with -0.01 against black. >Gambit-Tiger14.6 Nxe5 with -0.08. > >3. >the move 14...Bd6?. > >Macheide 14...c4 with +0.30 for black. >Shredder6.32 14...cxd4 with +0.43 for white. >Fritz7.0.0.6 with Nxe5 +0.25 for white. >CSTal2.03 c4 with -0.09 against black. >Gambit-Tiger14.6 plays Bd6 with -0.32. > > > >4. >the move 17...Rcc7!?. > >Macheide wants to play fxg5 with -1.13 against black. >Shredder6.32 wants to play Bf8 with +2.18 for white. >Fritz7.0.0.6 fxg5 +1.15 for white. >CSTal2.03 fxg5 -1.64 against black. >Gambit-Tiger14.6 plays fxg5 with -1.52. > > > >5. >the move 22...Qe8!?. > >Macheide plays Qe8 with -1.75 against black. >Shredder6.32 plays Bc7 with +2.56 for white. >Fritz7.0.0.6 plays Qe8 with +1.90 for white. >CSTal2.03 plays h6 with -1.67 against black. >Gambit-Tiger14.6 plays Qe8 with -2.52. > > >Conclusion: > >I think, when we can learn something out of the second game, >than it is how important it is to change computerchess paradigm. > >MANY chess programs are helpless against a human beeing playing >this kind of chess against them. > >And trying to be the best in the swedish-rating list will not >wipe out the illusion that getting the first rank has not much to >with chess at all. We are always talking about the programs >making progress. When i see Van Wely playing such a nice game, >i see almost no progress in computerchess at all. > >The question has to be: why is their no progress ? > >I think i know the asnwer. Because nobody is interested to >make a different approach. The programmers are most often >interested in killing their opponent, their major enemy >in the ssdf-list, or their major opponent in a tournament >or world-computer-chess championship. Maybe this is the right >target in such a microcosmos. but then computerchess is only >a subgroup, a microcosmos in the macrocosmos chess. I think many programmers *are* interested in a different approach. I'm sure that most of them are not satisfied with JASC (just another stupid calculator). And there has been progress. But implementing the subtle strategical understanding of a strong human player is very difficult. If you know how to do it, please tell me :) Martin >Maybe we can call computerchess: 2 dimensional chess. Flat chess. > >Those games let us feel that we need another dimension. > >In the same way - btw - physicist tried to throw the spirit out >of the science. as if their brains had no spirit. > >Good that Jean E. Charon brought the spirit back with its >complex relativity theory. > >Where are the Charons of computerchess ??
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.