Author: Joe T. Pangilinan
Date: 19:42:39 12/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 1998 at 15:39:50, Laurence Chen wrote: >On December 14, 1998 at 13:38:20, Soren Riis wrote: > >> >> >>On December 14, 1998 at 10:29:47, Thom Perry wrote: >> >>> If the sacrifice is the correct move and forces a winning position, it seems >>> to me that this should be fairly easy for the good chess programs to >>> demonstrate: just let the program play out the game after the sacrifice. >>> I'm going to do just that with MCP8 tonight and with the learning enabled. >>> Then I'll replay it several times until MCP8 can find no better alternative, >>> regardless of which color tends to win. >> >>I find this idea very exiting! My understanding (but I am not an expert) is >>that so far such ideas goes somewhat against the provisional wisdom. However >>machines are getting so fast and there playing strength so hight that is >>certainly believe Thom Perrys idea could be extremely successful. The strong >>chess computers still remarkeble weak if judging the value of an attack. >>We one could use half the computation time in isolating and investigating >>sacs (and other unusual moves) which leads to unbalanced positions >>modern programs could get a quantum leap forward in playing strength. >> >>The whole idea of testing conjectures, like "does this attack works", >>"is it worth winning the pawn" etc. seems very sensible given the enormous >>speed and strength of modern computers. Did anyone try to implement >>Thoms Perrys idea? >> >>Soren Riis >Thank you Soren Riis for your reply, it is such approach I use when I study >chess positions. I believe it is a waste of time doing engine vs. engine games >if there are other groups which do this for us, the SSDF or Eric's computer >newsletter. So instead I concentrate in using the chess engines to help me in >improving my game, I am not interested in collecting the best engine nor the >strongest engine, but in several different engines because each engine >approaches the chess game in its own unique style, and I am in search for chess >truth, not in the best nor strongest engine. It is my dream of one day to reach >the highest accolade in chess, the GM title, and that is why I have interest in >several different chess engines to help me study, and it is important to know >the limitations of each engine one owns, not because it can beat so and so >engine. All I did in my past posting was to point out some limitations of CM, >and instead I get a lot of hot aired reply. I have no favouritism towards a >chess engine, it is a software program running in a machine, remember that it >still needs a programmer to write and teach the darn thing. Let's not forget >that, we are the master of the machines, not the other way around. The Idea of using more than one chess Engine for analysis of chess positions make sense. Chessbase recognized this also, and it is implemented as one of the Fritz features. On Fritz 5.00, you can select to have the program load the best engine it thinks is the most appropriate for a type of position (Fritz for Tactical, Hiracs for positional, and Mate 1.0 for solving chess problems). On Fritz 5.32, you can have "comparative multiengine analysis of games". One of the reasons I think why program owners (including me) are interested in comparing the strength of different engines is belief that, the stronger the program, the more accurate the analysis is on MOST 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.