Author: José Carlos
Date: 16:28:30 06/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2002 at 01:11:01, Roger D Davis wrote: >As is well known, Fritz and some of the other programs often play ugly looking >moves in comparison to Hiarcs and other "knowledge-based" programs. Yet, Fritz >is at the top of the SSDF. My question: Do these moves look ugly simply because >human beings come to the game with a set of heuristic principles, which suits >our neural networking hardware? Do human beings attempt to "overimpose" order >and/or symmetry on the game, simply because of our own cognitive limitations? > >Maybe so, because Fritz is clearly comeing up with 2600-2700 rated moves, on the >average. Are these ugly moves also rated 2600-2700? Do these moves point to >holes in human cognition that will eventually allow computers to eclipse human >beings in strength? > >Roger Hi Raj! I know what you mean by ugly moves. You mean moves that don't fit into our human 'taste'; unnatural we could say. In my opinion nobody can know if a move is 'perfect', meaning that it's the best move in a complete search tree (until checkmate or draw), so a move is as good as the result it leads to. If you play such ugly moves and win games against player who make more natural moves, then your moves are good. I've played against human players who make 'second moves' all the time, but don't make mistakes. No matter how brilliant you play against them, if you make a mistake you lose. This might be the case of Fritz. Usually it doesn't make mistakes, so it wins. Hence the moves are good. José C.
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.