Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 11:16:34 07/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2002 at 14:03:24, Sune Fischer wrote:
>On July 19, 2002 at 13:39:32, Matthew Hull wrote:
>
>>On July 19, 2002 at 09:54:08, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>world championship.
>>>
>>>I suggest that the rules can say that the games are
>>>played under winboard(pondering off,animation off).
>>>
>>>Every 2 programs can play 100 or even more games between
>>>them so the total number of games of every program can be
>>>at least 5000.
>>>
>>>I believe that we may get significant results
>>>by that idea.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>I don't suppose we would see many "evergreen" games from such a contest. The
>>quality of the chess would be quite low. For that kind of entertainment, an
>>elemetary school chess tournament might suffice. Some might say it would be
>>more interesting to watch people race their electric belt sanders.
>>
>>To me, the compelling attraction of computerchess is its potential to some day
>>definitively define what Lasker called "the reason of chess", or at least make
>>some asymtotic approach to that answer.
>>
>>Bullit chess is an idea seeminly calculated to suck the very life out of a game
>>which is loved for its beauty and complexity.
>>
>>As much fun as blitz can be personally, it's not real chess in the classic
>>intellectual sense. I think computerchess can offer more than what an extreme
>>bullit event proposed here can offer.
>>
>>Just my opinion. ;-)
>>
>>Regards,
>
>No, you are right it isn't chess in the classic sense, 1 sec/G they move so fast
>you have no idea who is being checkmated or what is going on :)
>
>But, you will be surprised that something interesting can actually develop in
>such games. E.g. things that are found by static eval need no search at all.
I suppose this could be a high motive for the contest. But I still think they
just want to "race their electric belt sanders". :-)
>
>Here is a "nice" 1 sec game selfplayed by my engine, I like the opening for
>white, it sort of reveals the opening code I have (no book was used) :)
>
>1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nd7 3. Nf3 Ngf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bf4 Qe7 6. Bc4 c6 7. O-O a6 8.
>Re1 a5 9. e5 dxe5 10. dxe5 Ng4 11. Qd6 Qd8 12. Qd4 Bc5 13. Qd2 b6 14. Bg5
>Qc7 15. Nd4 a4 16. a3 b5 17. b3 bxc4 18. bxa4 h6 19. Bf4 h5 20. h3 f6 21.
>exf6 Nde5 22. fxg7 Qxg7 23. hxg4 Nxg4 24. Nxe6 Bxf2+ 25. Qxf2 Qxc3 26. Qd4
>Rxa4 27. Be5 Qxc2 28. Bxh8 c3 29. Nc5+ Qe4 30. Qxc3 Nf2 31. Rab1 Bh3 32. g3
>Bd7 33. g4 Bxg4 34. Ra1 Nh3+ 35. Kh2 Rc4 36. Qxc4 Qxe1 37. Rxe1+ Kf8 38.
>Bc3 Ng5 39. Qf4+ Nf7 40. Qb8+ Bc8 41. Qxc8+ Nd8 42. Qxd8+ Kf7 43. Qe8#
>{White mates} 1-0
>
>-S.
Nice. Now at the end of the contest, you can wade through the 5000 odd results
to find the gems, eh?
Regards,
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.