Author: Mike S.
Date: 05:53:24 01/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2004 at 19:07:23, Bob Durrett wrote: >Your observations seem to suggest, perhaps astutely, that the best design for an >anti-human engine may be significantly different from the optimal design for >play against other computers. Agree? Yes and no :-) I think there are good arguments for both extremes: 1. Even more tactical, because that's the biggest strength of programs compared to humans (and very deep calculation might replace some sophisticated positinal evaluations), or 2. Less tactical (because they can easily be much better than humans anyway), and with every possible improvement of the traditional program weaknesses positional play (and/or even strategical decisions). As very simplified (and therefore not quite correct, but illustrative) examples we could say, that Fritz has been more the type (1) approach, and Shredder more type (2). Actually Fritz was moving towards type (2) in recent version history though. After the X3D match, Frans Morsch said Fritz will now be entirely developed further considering human opposition (only). Hiarcs is somewhat difficult to categorize between (1) and (2), because it always had a good "positional reputation", but was among the fastest combinators at the same time (at least since version 6). Maybe the "most type (1)" engine currently is Junior. In practise, I think most engines are a 1/2 mixture. Both a quick search and a good evaluation will obviously also be good against other engines too, not only against humans. Maybe the optimal anti-human and anti-computer designes would be much less different than we assume. Regards, M.Scheidl
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.