Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:12:29 11/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2003 at 18:03:50, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On November 17, 2003 at 17:52:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 17, 2003 at 17:35:42, Daniel Clausen wrote: >> >>>While one should be careful when testing engines with only a few positions, I >>>wouldn't be surprised if Crafty would have the very good (if not the best among >>>computers) chances against humans in a similar match. The effort to concentrate >>>very much on games against humans has to pay off after that time. Too bad that a >>>match GK-Crafty is not realistic due to commercial constraints. >>> >>>Sargon >> >> >>I would hesitate to draw conclusions from a couple of positions. The >>entire game has to be played. I certainly feel that the commercial >>programs are better-tuned overall, even though Crafty will clearly have >>a right idea here and there that others don't.. > >I know that a couple of positions don't mean a lot. It's more a feeling than >anything else. :) > >About being better-tuned overall: don't you think this is more important in >comp-comp games than in human-comp games? Again, I can't really prove it, but I >think that in a human-comp game it's more important to have certain eval-terms >than having them well-tuned. What do others think? Any "proof" for one or the >other side? > >Sargon I think that you can expect humans to play against the opponent's weaknesses. In case that kasparov plays a serious match against crafty you can expect kasparov to play for positions that Crafty is stupid and maybe Fritz is not stupid and I believe that he can find them. Uri
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.