Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 09:28:06 11/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2002 at 11:44:58, Dan Andersson wrote: >Here you go again. This is not the place for this. Generally, I agree with this unless the bulletin can be tied to computer chess in some sensible and interesting way. Note that opening positions may not be very useful as test positions for chess engines, since most modern chess engines "are too dumb to play openings." They have to use a crutch: an opening book. : ) : ) >And if you insist that a line >is favourable for whoever. Post the variations and let others punch holes in it >at their leisure. And the line is pure crock. A reasonable position to take, in essence, except for the "crock" part. But a Devil's advocate would surely point out that many "second rate" openings might be entirely satisfactory and even desirable for games between amateurs. In fact, for amateurs rated 1600 or so, the choice of opening normally has nothing at all to do with the outcome of a game, assuming no gross blunder in the opening. If an opening presents interesting or fun problems or opportunities for amateurs, then they have merit just for that reason. What does this have to do with computer chess? As noted in earlier bulletins, I would like to see a chess program, containing a [an "imbedded"?] top-strength chess engine, which would simulate the play of HUMAN chessplayers at any chosen playing strength. When play is to simulate a 1600 human amateur, then the program should play like a 1600 human amateur. This should be true in the opening as well as in the remainder of the game. I would like to see an opening book which could be automatically configured [by automatic re-adjusting the move probabilities] before each game. If the program were asked to play like a 1600 human amateur, the opening book would automatically be adjusted to play amateur openings. These openings need not be entirely sound, as long as they do not lose outright. Programming for such a program might not be so easy! It is not clear whether or not the engine would have to be modified, or if it could just be called when needed. Assuming that the engine could be used unmodified, then the software which called the engine would have to pose the right problems for the engine to solve. That software might have to have more chess knowledge than the engine itself? Bob D. >White has enough problems proving >more than a slight edge in the sicilian in less fanciful lines. If you loathe >the main lines, try the Rossolimo or the Alapin. The Alapin is a total waste of >time though. > >MvH Dan Andersson
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.