Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:25:28 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 15:00:05, Roy Eassa wrote: >I have very gradually come around to the idea that what makes a chess computer >good against other chess computers may be quite different from what makes it >good against strong human chessplayers. > >Some years ago, PCs were slow enough that the chess author had no choice but to >write the program to maximize the search, or else even moderately strong humans >could win simply by tactics. But I think now, with PCs over 2 GHz, just 25% of >the computer's power is more than sufficient tactically against humans. Against >other computers, every ounce of speed must be used to search deeper, as in Fritz >or Ruffian. But against humans perhaps the great majority of the power of the >CPU needs to be used exclusively to play anti-human chess: avoid locked >positions, avoid allowing certain types of attacking formations, "understand" >many, many types of positions better, etc. Such a program would likely perform >very poorly against the likes of Fritz but could perform much better than Fritz >does against top humans. > >My thought: there should be two totally different classes of chess programs: >those that are designed to win against other programs and those that are >designed to win against humans. And if you want to create a program that claims >to do both, you should have it swap in a completely different set of algorithms >-- and not just change a few settings -- depending upon the opponent (human or >computer). Marvelous! Rolf Tueschen
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.