Author: Johan de Koning
Date: 17:39:23 03/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2004 at 05:56:20, stuart taylor wrote: >On March 21, 2004 at 01:49:48, Johan de Koning wrote: > >>On March 20, 2004 at 20:37:09, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>And even if without further improvements in playing strength (but atleast the >>>best setting should be the default settings etc. and it should stay ATLEAST as >>>strong as it is now, and not do things which risk it getting weaker), can there >>>be OTHER improvements of things which I have not yet seen, like a very advanced >>>kind of chatter, which comments intelligently on the position, as well as a >>>choice of different chatters e.g. 1).highly intelligent 2).humorous 3).humorous >>>as well as completely clean! 4).Different combinations of the above. 5) >>>encouraging etc. >> >>I think you'll find 1)...5) right here in this forum. :-) >> >>>Also, a finely tuned estimation of playing strength according to your games, but >>>not based only on percentage of won, lost, drawn etc. >> >>That's tough. >>As far as *playing* strength goes we don't have anything better than >>Elo's statistical model. Insight, fighting spirit, distractions, and >>not the least physical fitness, are all thrown at one heap. But then >>again, that *is* what defines playing strength in the real world. >> >>... Johan > >In the real world, you KNOW very well in advance before you are going to play a >rated game, and when you do, it's normally against other humans who have similar >psychological make ups, and that is a part of the fairness (if not always 100% >fair). A machine is ALWAYS playing for a rating, and under optimum conditions 24 >hours a day and at its peak, champion attitude. If I understand you correctly you'd like to spar against an engine with a more humanesque weakness. E.g. letting you get away with a 3-ply blunder occasionally, rather than just playing positinally sloppy at a constant rate. I can see a point in that. But attempts at artificial stupidity tend to look silly after after a while, just like artificial homour tends to get annoying quickly. And there's still the fact that a "human rating" must be measured against human opposition, or else it is only an estimate. ... Johan
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.