Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 06:19:33 11/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2002 at 12:45:44, stuart taylor wrote: >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 In my definiton this is not about charm, but raw strenght! The engine playing closest to what the position demands is simply the strongest! Torstein
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.