Author: stuart taylor
Date: 09:45:44 11/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2002 at 12:29:26, Torstein Hall wrote: >On November 24, 2002 at 08:57:51, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On November 24, 2002 at 07:49:59, Marc van Hal wrote: >> >>>On November 24, 2002 at 05:44:54, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On November 23, 2002 at 22:38:43, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>Yes, maybe with some refinements;-) >>>> >>>>But not refinements that can increase playing strength, or atleast results >>>>and/or charm? >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>>I think your wrong about the charm it now also has Real 3d pieces. >>>Marc >> >>Oooooh sorry! That's also charm, for sure! But I was refering to it's playing >>style, meaning depth and knowledge etc. >> >>If a program wins the same amount of games beautifully and with obvious depth of >>understanding, as another program does simply in a cold bloodied way, then I >>would say that the first program is actually a bit stronger, than the second. >> Work it out for yourself! >>S.Taylor > >I would say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people prefer a long >positional game, while others find beauty in romantic 18 century attacks. So I >think your charm question is unanswerable. > >Torstein Both those things are what I mean by beauty and charm, if they are what the position most calls for, and allows. Often, computer games have neither. S.Taylor
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.