Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:57:23 09/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>>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 - >(1) Ed Schröder's idea above sounds like it may be the key: Select the best >"anti-human" playing style. >(2) Now, what remains to be said is what, specifically, we mean by a "playing >style," and to identify, define, and itemize the specific elements of the best >"anti-human playing styles." To be complete, it also should be said: how and >why those specific elements contribute to the strength of the engine against >humans. Impossible to give a definition. What's in Rebel is mainly balanced and well tuned stuff through the years. Rebel doesn't take huge risks except for some specific king attack patterns (when the king is forced to enter the 3th row or above). If you enter the well known 1.e4 Nf6 2.Bc4 Nxe4 3.Bxf7+ Kxf7 4.Qh5+ Rebel will immediately pick 4..Kg8 as best move. I think this kind of knowledge is crucial playing strong human players. I also believe that the playing style of a chess program is strongly related to the goals of the programmer. Possibilities: a) Make the best program against computers; b) Make the best program against humans; c) Make the program the best finder in tactics; d) More? In case of (a) auto232 results are decisive. In case of (b) the "good feeling" of a chess programmer about a version is decisive. Case (c) is self-understood. Of course all programmers have their own priorities. For Rebel this since day one has been: (a) 20% (b) 60% (c) 20% - 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.