Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 06:19:12 11/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2003 at 07:43:54, K. Burcham wrote: >On November 17, 2003 at 04:20:42, martin fierz wrote: > >>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... > >I dont agree. Kasparov worked on this closed position, once he had it, it was to >late for the program. the program played defensive moves while Kasparov was on >the offensive---big difference, then too late. >> >>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. > >I dont agree. I follow almost every GM tournament game played that is posted on >the internet. These are full of shallow blunders that a program would not make >at all. I accept this. I do not accept something that can be fixed. Game 3 can >be fixed. You should take in account that chess programs do not plan, they calculate. In tactical positions this is very good, but in closed pos like the one from yesterdays game it do not work. There is no short range goals, you have to plan in general terms and see where you are going to attack and brake through a lot later. No program I know has solved this up to now. Torstein >> >>cheers >> martin
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.