Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:16:51 11/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2002 at 09:34:46, andrew tanner wrote: >I believe an ELO 2500 chess engine would be plenty strong enough for use in a >"silicon sparring partner" for an 1800 player. The idea would be to make the >engine err almost every move. The errors must be typical of 1800 players and >occur in the games consistent with the statistics for an 1800 player. The other >characteristics of human 1800 players, such as fatigue, should also be emulated. > Of course, the engine programmer would have to get rid of those "computer-like" >moves, such as Bf8 in the Kramnik vs DF match. > >Bob D. > > I play master strength chess and have found that the game is best understood >as a collection of conceptualizations. If you weaken a chess engine to play at >your current strength, then you are losing the value of learning new concepts >from your mistakes. You will be, in effect making the same mistakes over and >over because you have no incentive (immediate failure) to learn new stronger >concepts. I would go as far to say that to get stronger in chess one must be >disciplined mentally enough to be willing to lose humiliatingly over and over >until the concept that is missing is learned. The stronger the program, the >better. The game is purely intellectual. The pieces and the board ultimately >mean nothing. If you lose in 20 or so moves (as even Kasparov does occasionaly >*ahem* Kramnik,Deep Blue) Then you either blundered or you have learned a faulty >concept..no big deal for the amateur, but for the professional, well then a huge >embarrassment and loss of revenue. A most interesting point of view! Having never consistently played at the master level, I must rely on the advice of masters and GMs regarding the path to chess mastery. I must say that this is the first time I have been exposed to the idea that you should play against extremely strong programs or people. The advice I've received in the past has been that best progress is made if you play someone [or something] stronger than you but not so strong that you could not win a game with extra effort. The rationale usually given is that playing against someone who "beats your brains out" every game is so discouraging and demoralizing that it is likely that the victim quits the game entirely. This is especially true if the winner "lords it over his victim" after the game. It is a matter of psychology. Most people are imperfect. VERY imperfect! Specifically, they can become discouraged or "turned off." That would not be productive. 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.