Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 03:08:59 11/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2003 at 05:34:31, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 16, 2003 at 04:47:15, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On November 15, 2003 at 19:29:52, Ziad Haddad wrote: >> >>Hi, >> >>>If u see the chessbase homepage, u will see that in the last informator of >>>chess, Karpov used a computer chess game between CT15-Shredder7 to comment his >>>game. In fact Shredder has found a theoretical novelty. >> >>No, this is wrong the novelty was developped by our team, not by the program... >> >>> >>>Talking about Junior, i must say that this program surprises me each time he >>>plays, but he alternates the best and the worst. To tell do not use Junior to >>>analyse Openings, i don't fully agree with this statement. Better say don't use >>>it to analyse positional openings, but it's a suitable engine to analyse opened >>>and tactical positions issued from the openings. >> >>You cannot expect computers to find novelties, at least in the early stage of >>the game, these must come from human people that works on the book. Hi Uri, > >Why not? Because they cannot see deeply enough. In middle game it would be different. Also theory has developed making many games and thanks to correspondance chess also in many variations? >If the engine is strong enough it should be able to find novelties. Ok, I would agree on this when the strenght of the programs would be at least 500 points higher than they are today. >Part of the new moves may be wrong but part of them should be better moves. Well, normally a novelty is worth if a set of correct following moves is considered as well. If some are not good, than it would not work...or not? > >Uri Sandro
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.