Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 13:49:08 12/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
First off, I eliminated the multiple include levels in order to make this clearer. There are several points I wish to make. 1. KK, your catagorizing me as 'emotional' does nothing to advance this discussion. Futhers, as Reynolds Takata rightly pointed out, you seem to be the one deeply invested in making sure that everyone agrees with your assessment of CM6K as a 'Toy' program; you started the thread, you chose the inflammatory words. 2. So far, you (someone who may not currently be an expert-level player, but who has 'maxed out' at 2023) has said that he knows better than at least 5 titled Masters what a chess program should do and what it shouldn't. And that he knows how to train better then me (USCF Life Master), Reynolds Takata (USCF Life Master; FIDE Master), and Gregory kaidanov (USCF 2650+, FIDE 2600+, Grand Master). This is pretty absurd to anyone who looks at it. 3. You answered none of my requests for your qualifications other that posting a perhaps out-of date rating. If you are going to make these kind of statements, you probably should have some credentials for doing so. All I am asking is that you post them, so that everyone has some background upon which to judge your 'expertise'. I'm not at all saying that we shouldn't pay attention to you because you're not a master, but that someone reading this thread might want to decide for himself whether to listen to Me, and Reynolds, and several other Masters, or you. In order to do this, he needs more information. Why won't you provide this? 4. A PV and an 5 move analysis on screen (what you are proposing as 'the best' computer based training program) simply fails on a number of points a. the computer has no way of expressing a plan in a PV. b. The computer has no way of saying why a given line is better than another...the student is simply left with 'Bb5 is +1.25, and h3 is +1.35. This information is often entirely meaningless. c. The differences between evaluations of less than a pawn or so are often entirely meaningless for most players. Any program is going to use an evaluation function with features not understandable to non-programmers. Why is Bb5 +1.23, and Why is h3 +1.35? The PV's are only going 5 moves deep. If the evaluation is this close, it's probably not a material disparity; it's an artifact of the evaluation function. This artifact give *no* information to the student whatsoever. d. The student learns nothing about *how* to judge a position. It's great that Fritz thinks the position is +.34 for white...how does the student make a similar decision, and how does he use this? e. The student is encouraged to judge a given position as a single and disconnected position. Each time the comp sees a new position, it starts it's evaaluation anew (forgetting about hash tables for the moment. This may be how a computer plays, but it is *EXACTLY* how a human *SHOULDN'T* play; the student is learning bad habits, and is disconnecting the position from the flow of the game. Your ideas about why CM6K is a 'toy' program are related only to this and the opening book editor. correct? Well I think it's pretty clear that a *large number* of strong, serious chess players disagree with you on this account. Wh can't you simply submit to 'well, we have a difference of opinion' and let it go? You keep saying things like "Kaidanov obviously doesn't use a chess program for training" which, BTW he does, and "You guys are simply wrong..it is 'the single most important feature of a chess program". You seem to have to prove yourself right, and Me and Reynolds Takata, and the other Masters who have commented on this wrong. First off, it won't happen...qualifications *do* make a difference, and second, I'm, confused as to why this is so important to you. Chris Dorr USCF Life Master
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.