Author: margolies,marc
Date: 00:07:45 06/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
dear stu, I don't think your imagination is wandering. But I do think your explanation went for a small walk. Here's the rub: if a player cannot find stimulation from a chess position yet requires the "crutch" of hortatory remarks from his computer opponent to finish a game well, then while he may be thinking, yet not thinking "independently." So it's not good for Chess character (at least in my opinion) I shall never damn anyone for needing help of cousre. I need plenty too. The strength I think comes in the honesty of reaconing directly with that. But to say some one is more indepedent because they rely on a machine instead of humans -- gosh I dunno. half a dozen of one or the other! best to ya, marc On June 11, 2003 at 20:21:05, stuart taylor wrote: >On June 11, 2003 at 15:11:17, margolies,marc wrote: > >>stu, >> on reflection, I recall that you can toggle vebal commentary-- what you call >>smart chatter-- as an insertion into analysis when running the fritz analysis >>module. there are about I guess 300 different text messages the prog can use >>like 'strengthening square d5' I think this is what you are looking for. >>the fritzy wont do this in real time while you play-- it's an analysis option. >> >>it should not become a playing mode i think,'coach' is enough! we dont need the >>machine to do our thinking for us when we play that's too lazy for me! >> >>Also if you need to see how the machine might answer it's own moves there is >>'shoot-out' mode to follow a variation. >> >>PS the main reason I will never use vebal commentary in engine analysis, when >>the computer 'sounds too human' it becomes very credible -- and I know fritz >>often misses important strategic plan when analyzing. This is clear to me >>because I will show my games to strong IM here in New York (tournament games) >>and when I have time to run Fritz overnight,say, on a game first ..sure it will >>show me my blunders ,BUT if I miss an important PLAN (so necessary for LEARNING >>how to play) I rarely see any insight from A chessbase analytical product. >> >>Maybe that's the recomendation CB needs?? >>bye, marc > >Obviously one problem might be that there ARE not many insights. >If it could say thing things like "what you just did exchanges an important >piece for a less important piece", and why that is, then I think that would be a >high enough concept to get me extremely involved in a game. And things like >"beware on the light squares" etc. Even things like "a King side attack is/isn't >now a wise/viable consideration" (with reasons too!). > DURING a game? Well, if it mentions strategic aims, and it is for you to work >out how to do them, that might be quite engaging. Later on in analysing you can >see if and how the program itself does what it preached. >If Fritz sounds too human, you can learn to argue with it by trying to see if >they are wrong etc. You can then develope great independence in thinking! (Am I >imagining?) >Also, at any time that the machine changes its mind after seeing deeper (e.g. >after 10 seconds, 30 seconds, 4 minutes.......) the chatter has to say so, and >to say what it thinks now. So you will also be used to imagining that it might >change its mind anyway. >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.