Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 05:47:53 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 01:40:38, Georg Langrath wrote: >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. Me too! :) >And if the computer wins against me, it wasn't so stupid >for me. I guess "all is relative." >And the match is much more entertaining And that is a worthy objective! Incidentally, you wouldn't use such a computer program [entertaining but weak] for post-mortem analyses of GM games, nor for post-mortem analyses of your own games either, I suspect. >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 Yes, I see what you mean. I believe that there is a market for entertaining chess programs. Bob D. > >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.