Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 10:20:46 03/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 22, 2003 at 11:41:04, ludicrous wrote: >I look on the "bright side". Most recent programs such as Fritz 8 still play >"weak positional" moves like ...Bf8. There is still room for improvement. > >I eagerly await the day when even a computer killer like Mr. Nemeth cannot win a >single game in a 100 game match vs the top programs. > >We still see brutal Computer Thrashings being done by people like mr Nemeth or >by masters. > >Mr Theron (or was it Mr. Kahlen?) said before that as computers become stronger, >they become more human. >I just hope that when computers do become 100-300 points stronger than the >programs of today, >they will still possess their individual styles and not converge into one >singular, "perfect" style (because I believe there is no such thing; all perfect >roads lead to victory :-) i will appreciate comments on this) . > >Mr Theron >Regards, The only good style is not developed yet The only good style is a strong balance in tactical and positional knowledge Now programs are or Tactical or positional but never a good combination of both. Tactical engines are worse when positional positions arise when out of book. Positional engines are worse when tactical positions arise when out of book. Rebel was very close to this style but it still needs more pawn knowledge And knowledge about hanging or inescapable pieces Ps with tactical engines I don't mean the solving of epd diagrams. The Botvinik style of Chessmaster always is a good style of testing the combination of tactical and positional knowledge It is not the score where you should look at but when and why an engine looses certain positions. You can't learn much from won games. Marc
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.