Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 00:54:29 08/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 1998 at 01:28:50, Shaun Graham wrote: > It is not too uncommon here to hear programs being described as a player or a >solver. Generally it seems to me at least to mean that some programs solve test >positions better than they play chess, and that other programs play chess better >than they solve test problems. Since at least to my knowledge programs don't so >much plan or have strategys, then in essence they are solving each position anew >on every move. Thus i can't figure out how or perhaps why programs are reffered >to as being solvers or players. Yet there is evidence of just this for instance >chess tiger seems to solve almost everything, but at least to my knowledge it >isn't the absolute strongest program. My only conclusion as of yet, is that >some programs are more skilled than others at leading a game to positions that >they can have a better understanding of??? Does anyone have a reason on how >program x, can be a better solver than y but not be as good of a player? Playing well a game may not be the same as solving for positions. Assume a program which does very well on positions, but uses 99% of its time on move one. It's easy to understand that this program performs badly in a tournament. So the implications may be as follows strong playing program --> good in solving positions not good in solving positions --> weak playing program Playing a game is not the same as solving a position. By playing a game you have a history - moves in hash table. There may be a lot of other aspects as well. Kind regards Bernhard
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.