Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:05:03 11/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2003 at 20:12:29, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I would agree. In fact, he might find ways to exploit Crafty's strong tendency to not allow blocked pawn positions.
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.