Author: stuart taylor
Date: 06:02:52 11/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2003 at 06:16:13, Mike Hood wrote: >On November 11, 2003 at 04:55:56, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On November 11, 2003 at 04:07:38, ERIQ wrote: >> >>>Let's vote :) >> >>But a different subject. And my vote is that Fisherandom IS very interesting and >>important for computer testing because it tests the computers innate >>understanding of openings, rather than preprogrammed things. >>In fact I think that there could be nothing better for testing true strength of >>computer program, and I am very interested in this discussion. >> >>S.Taylor > >Just my opinion: I personally am not interested in Fischer Random Chess, Shuffle >Chess, Chinese Chess or any variation apart from classical chess. I've never >played a single game of FRC, neither on the board nor on the computer, and I >doubt I ever will. > >However, I respect the rights of anyone to have an interest in variant forms of >chess. Posts on this subject are definitely on-topic in this forum, and >everybody should feel free to contribute or not contribute in such threads >without having to be attacked by extremists on either side. I hardly think that with a different order of pieces on the first rank, it should be called a chess variant. I can understand that it is an impossible position had the game started according to the rules of where the pieces start from, but hardly a chess variant. And even if it is, I honestly think that a chess playing program which is top in that kind of chess, is the inherently strongest program, if not for opening theory. If not, I'd be interested to know why not. I might be wrong. 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.