Author: Georg Langrath
Date: 22:40:38 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 17:47:05, Bob Durrett wrote: >On October 24, 2002 at 16:50:54, Georg Langrath wrote: > >>>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. >> >> >>I agreed to you until you said that the very speculative chessprogram should be >>on top level. Wouldn't it be fun enough to play against a program that made very >>speculative sacrifices on your own level? And much easier to realize such a >>program. >>The best try in what I mean is Chess Tiger Suicidal. Suicidal perhaps, but not >>for a chessplayer that is weaker than the program. >> >>Georg > >Please forgive me if I misunderstand you, but to me "suicidal" and "sacrificial" >are as different as night and day. > >To me, "sacrificial chess" is a type of chess in which the sacrificial player is >accepting a certain amount of risk in exchange for perceived chances. > >Suicidal would be simply stupid chess. > >Incidentally, I am not interested in finding a program which plays at my >abysmally low level. It must be competitive at the GM level, or it's not very >interesting. This implies that the sacrifices must be sophisticated. Like >Kramnik's Nxf7 for example. Ideally, the outcome should be beyond the horizons >of both players, whether human or computer. > >Bob D. I think I understand what you mean. But what is a stupid move for Kramnik can be a smart move for me. And if the computer wins against me, it wasn't so stupid for me. And the match is much more entertaining when the computer does sacrifices and still wins against me. I mean the computer gives away a bit of its strength for more entertaining matches. I doesn't matter if the computer still is strong enough for me Georg Georg
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.