Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 14:08:41 10/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2002 at 16:33:35, Bob Durrett wrote: >The above has been discussed in previous threads. exactly. i have made experience in this field to. my friend bern kohlweyer (ELO 2430) often played against my computer programs. and i came to the conclusion that for him the "strongest" was not always a problem. but less strong programs have been. IMO playing style is an important feature when it comes to play computer-humans. if the human don't like the computers playing style, he has problems to win. if he likes the style the computer plays, he can easily win against this computer. IMO the chess players did not like the programs that played THE SAME way they played, and they easily killed those playing different. >That's why people started talking about chess engines designed as anti-human >machines. exactly, and rebel has SHOWN (in matches against humans !) that its strategy against humans is good. otherwise it would not have played good in the matches. >It was noted that competition between computers might not produce the best >anti-human machine. The only way to select the best anti-human computer program >is to have a competition where all the computers played against the same group >of top GMs. we had this. in the hague, netherlands. rebels results there over the years were very good as far as i know. Then the program which did best against that group of humans could >ligitimately claim to be the top anti-human program. > >Bob D. right. one could have done this.
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.