Author: Sally Weltrop
Date: 11:33:30 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 13:20:53, Bob Durrett wrote: >On October 24, 2002 at 13:13:44, Sally Weltrop wrote: > >>On October 24, 2002 at 13:09:46, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Such an engine would search for and find moves which meet the same criteria used >>>by human GMs when they try to decide whether or not to play a risky but >>>promising move. >>> >>>Why do this? Answer: It might be fun to play against such a monster. >>>Especially if it were very innovative and creative in selection of it's >>>sacrifices. >>> >>>Here, I am talking about a chess engine designed to accept some calculated >>>risks. Not the current crop which always tries to play the "best" move. >>> >>>The chess engines are already good enough to whip most of us. Why not try to >>>find ways to make their play more interesting? Having them play some >>>speculative chess would add interest. They would still whip most of us even if >>>some of the speculative sacs proved to be unsound. >>> >>>The engine should be programmed to play speculative moves such that the >>>refutation is very hard to find. >> >>Chess System Tal >>WChess >>MChess >>Virtual Chess >> >>and I am sure there are plenty more that I haven't thought of >>> >>>Bob D. > >Thanks, Sally. But are they any good? I was really thinking about having a >program at the top level. One which might be used successfully against top GMs. Unless your Tal speculative moves will fail against the top GM's so you'll never find one there. All the programs I mentioned you should try sometime. You will find they can beat most rated players even GM's > >I fear that the examples you quoted may be the "pathfinders" or "first >attempts." Or, worse, just ways to test the market. > >Bob D.
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.