Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 16:51:06 09/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 1998 at 17:04:02, Amir Ban wrote: >On September 02, 1998 at 13:57:23, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>>>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 - > > >But this is all just restating what you believe in. You do nothing to convince >someone who is undecided on this point. How do you propose to prove this ? > >There are several programs who are about equal to Rebel in comp-comp >competition. Is Rebel significantly stronger than them against humans ? It >should be possible to demonstrate this. > >Amir I don't think it has been demonstrated yet. Rebel does very well vs. humans (e.g. AEGON, a serious enough tournament in my eyes), but as you well know, there are simply not enough "serious" human vs. computer games being played. Certainly it is possible to demonstrate either that Rebel is significantly stronger or that it is not significantly stronger than other programs in play vs. humans. But what group of GMs will play the hundreds or thousands of games against the various programs that are required to do so? Incidentally, I find reports of Junior vs. humans very interesting. Please keep them coming! :-) Dave Gomboc
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.