Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 05:41:23 06/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2004 at 08:28:08, Sune Fischer wrote: >On June 05, 2004 at 06:40:48, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On June 04, 2004 at 18:39:13, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>Since computer can hold and remember more Opening than any Human and they are at >>>the level of the very best human players such as Kasparov, Anand and Kramnik' >>>the need for Fischer Random Chess will become more popular in the next 5 years. >> >>I don't see why the computer's perfect memory would contribute to the popularity >>of FRC. Of course humans and computers have different skills. The computer is >>obviously superior at remembering concrete and exact information, and at >>calculating >>quickly. The human is superior at pattern recognition and long-range planning. >>There are some games where the computer's strengths are the more important >>(like othello), some where the human's skills are more important (like go), and >>some which are somewhere in between (like chess). Why does the fact that >>computer >>players are competitive in chess make the game less attractive for humans? > >I agree, programs are weaker when playing without book but so are humans. > >>And by the way, I don't think FRC is any more difficult to play for computers >>than >>classical chess. If some of the top programmers spent some time implementing >>FRC, the top engines would be just as competitive there as in classical chess. > >I think so too. >If the desire is to make a game where humans can still beat computers then FRC >is not hard enough. >That's not the idea with FRC however. > >>I personally find FRC to be one of the least interesting chess variants I have >>ever >>seen. If you want to abandon classical chess, why not switch to some of the >>many more complicated chess variants which really add something new to the >>game? > >With FRC you don't really want a new game, you want the old familiar chess game, >only without the need to spend countless hours memorizing long opening lines to >become a good player. > >FRC can be played the standard chess pieces and it takes very little getting >used to. >I have tried other variants and I find it really hard to adjust to new pieces >and picture how they move. You just don't "see it" like you do with normal >pieces, without that it's impossible to calculate tactics so you have to invest >a lot of time and basicly start from scratch in a whole new game. > >>There are lots of such variants, including Chess with Different Armies, >>shogi, hexagonal chess and Gothic chess. And unlike FRC, all of these chess >>variants really *are* more difficult for computers than classical chess. > >FRC was never designed to be an anti-computer game :) > >>>Even a player such as former world champion Garry Kasparov who has incredible >>>memorization capabilities, complained that he could not always remember his >>>opening preparation. Therefore, it will become justifiable to match the very >>>best human against the very vest FRC program. >> >>Neither Kasparov nor Kramnik would be very interested in such a match, I >>think. Leko would probably be willing to play, though. > >They go where the money go, for them it's business. > >>>Probably very soon Shredder and Hiarcs will also be available in FRC. >> >>Why do you think so? There is currently no market demand for a professional >>FRC engine. Right now, there are several hundred engines which play classical >>chess, and less than ten which play FRC. > >It's a small hack to most engines, so a better questions is "why not do it?". > >>I happen to be one of the few engine >>authors which have written engines for both games. Every week, I get about >>50 e-mails from users with feedback about my classical chess engine. I get >>almost no feedback at all about the FRC engine. Richard Pijl and Volker Anuss, >>who have also written FRC engines, have been kind enough to play a few >>games and send them to me, and you played a few games which you posted >>here, but that's all I have received so far. It took more than a week after the >>release of my FRC engine before anybody could even confirm that it worked >>(I couldn't test it, because I don't run Windows). >> >>The truth is that there is almost zero interest in FRC. From a commercial >>point of view, adding FRC support to Shredder or Hiarcs would be a complete >>waste of time. > >Well so is adding SMP support, and unlike FRC that's not a small hack at all. >:) >-S. > >>Tord And I would be happy to pay an additional $15 for a version of Shredder and Hiarcs that support FRC:-) Jorge
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.