Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 15:25:21 09/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 1998 at 18:05:15, John Coffey wrote: > >>that a rating of zero, under any of the lists currently published, is far weaker >>than anybody would ever need. > >As to what I mean as 0: At that level it would be a random move generator. >You can get weaker than that but there is no point. > It would be interesting to rate a random move generator, by the way. >As to a program being weaker than anybody would need: > >1. Some programs don't even come close. The lowest "rating" >on fritz 5 when running on a Petium II 400mhz is 1350, but that >rating often beats me at speed chess and I am strong A player. >The only other way to weaken the program is to change the way >it evaluates the position, or tweak the "blunder range" value. > It is obvious that their rating function is unaccurate. (I can only tell that by your statement, as I do not have Fritz 5, or even a PC). >2. What if you were teaching chess to a small child? I want to >start teaching chess to my 4 year old nephew, who might not be >much better than a random move generator. Even most beginners, >child or adult, need something pretty weak to practice against. > Small children are usually very intelligent, and if they are interested they quickly become far stronger than a random player. But you are absolutely right, and a long chain of defeats can discourage anybody, child or adult. >John Coffey José.
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.