Author: martin fierz
Date: 01:20:42 11/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2003 at 20:08:45, K. Burcham wrote: > >why do programs allow humans to control these openings? >why do programs allow humans to set up these walls instead of exchange pawns for >open files? >why can't code be written to exchange pawns even when early in book? > >why stage these matches when so many know what needs to be done with opening >code? I wish I knew why this was such a big deal to write code for. > >I am glad we have highly accomplished GM, but aggravating giving them easy win. >I would prefer letting them outplay the program in an open position. > >kburcham the real question should be: why do programs like fritz play these closed positions worse than any 2000 player? fritz' programmers surely know about those weaknesses, why have they never been addressed? with a whole team of professionals working on it... of course you can add code to your program that says: "every open file more is good for me". but this is clearly not an objective evaluation. many times it might just be good to keep the position closed. e.g. kaspy as white yesterday should not play for immediate pawn exchanges with f2-f3 - which is what some programs were suggesting on ICC yesterday, probably because of this stupid non-objective evaluation. for your final point, this is what you get in comp-human matches. kasparov blundered terribly in game 2, that was just as aggravating as what happened to fritz in game 3. cheers martin
This page took 0.01 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.