Author: martin fierz
Date: 13:21:55 04/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2002 at 12:50:56, Sune Fischer wrote: >On April 15, 2002 at 08:17:04, Claudio A. Amorim wrote: > >>So, are these the programs supposed to play at a 2700 level? Sure, they win many >>games against strong humans, but... Where is their chess competency? Shredder´s >>errors against Smirin were so elementary that they would not fit well in a >>strong club player´s blitz game. > >I looks so easy when done by a master, and programs do in general tend to be >very passive IMO. >But even though I know most programs has these weaknesses I am not able to >exploit them, and I think that goes for about 99% of all chessplayers. > >I do believe that we could develop anti-computer strategies, but I also believe >that the programmers could develop anti-anti-computer/anti-human strategies. It >just hasn't been done on a large scale on either side yet. ed schröder has invented something he calls "anti-GM-strategy". in other programs, i read on this board, there are evaluation terms which go about like this: "if there are 16 pawns on the board, give computer a penalty". most computers would play 3...d5 instead of Bb4 as shredder did, because it leads to a more open game. the books of the programs are made to choose lines which lead to open games normally. i would call this pretty large-scale on the program side... aloha martin > >A match like this is good, it will expose the programs positional weaknesses and >that is what the programmers need to fix it, I fear the programmers have been >too focused on comp-comp matches for too long. > >-S.
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.