Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:22:31 09/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Robert Henry Durrett on September 01, 1998 at 17:53:36: >Although there apparently have not been many games played between the top >programs and humans strong enough to win against these programs, there >seems to >be a general consensus among the more computer-savvy CCC members that at >least >some of the better programs are [or "probably" are] better against humans than >their comp vs comp tests would seem to suggest. True? Always been true. Due to the lack of an enormous amount of Man vs Machine games (like we have in the comp-comp area) there (maybe?) is a trend to declare comp-comp as the standard for the measuring of a chess program's playing strength. If we had much more Man vs Machine games then it would be crystal clear that Man vs Machine is a total different story than comp-comp. Because of the lack of many games we can only speculate on the few data we have. >For those on this CCC who know at least a little about how chess engines work, >the questions: >(1) "What do you suppose there is about the inner workings of such programs, >which do better than expected against humans, that help these programs against >humans?" The playing style of the specific program, what else? >(2) "What is there, specificaly, about some programs which make them seem to >NOT >do better against humans than their comp vs comp test results indicate?" The playing style of the specific program, what else? >If specific answers can be obtained, then what do these answers suggest for >future design guidelines for chess engines? For playing against (todays!) computers: add much more tactical stuff. For playing against (strong) humans: different playing style. - Ed -
This page took 0.01 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.