Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 10:12:47 06/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2002 at 12:03:16, Joe McCarro wrote: >As far as playability I thought the best program was power chess.(note though >I'm pretty much a patzer) The best featuure it had was that during the game it >was also preparing an analysis of the game that was ready to go *right after* >the game ended. The game was still fresh in your mind and you could learn from >your mistakes right away. How many times have you played a game of chess let >program x analyze if for a couple of hours left and never went through it? > ************* That does sound like a great feature! Chess programmers take note! I want this in my next version of Fritz! ******************** Incidentally, I might give up my loyalty to Fritz if another engine proved better someday. But, for now, Fritz is "King of the Hill" and it is therefore my first choice as an analysis engine. If chess engines become **significantly** more user friendly, I might even begin playing chess against them. >Since no other program gives immediate analysis after the game, I would want a >program that often plays weaker moves but punishes my tactical mistakes >immediately. Otherwise I might never see them. > >The idea of power chess to have a set opening that it steered you into was also >kinda nice and bad at the same time. the nice thing wax you ended up learning a >new openg prety well the bad part is if you went outside its opening it no >londger seemed to play dumbed down at all. It would be nice if a programmer >developed a complete opening repetiore in this fasion using more or less main >lines. The idea of making opening books optimized for USERS rather than making books optimized for winning computer-computer chess tournaments has been discussed a tiny bit here at ICD CCC but, IMHO, not nearly enough! <snip> Bob D.
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.