Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 08:18:49 06/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2004 at 10:13:03, Tord Romstad wrote: >On June 05, 2004 at 08:28:08, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>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 agree, but it seems that Jorge does not. I was arguing against Jorge's >statements >in the first post in this thread, where he claimed that we "need" FRC because >computers are too good at remembering opening theory. > >>>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. > >But you don't need to spend countless hours memorizing long opening lines to >become a good player. In fact, I am fairly sure man players never become strong >precisely *because* they spend so much memorizing opening lines instead of >studying games, practicing tactics and improving their endgame knowledge. > >In the hundreds of tournament games I played during my time as an active chess >player, only one was decided by opening knowledge (I lost a game from the >white side of a Scotch opening in only 19 moves, and the whole game turned >out to be known theory). It probably happens more often for players who >insist on always playing the most fashionable opening lines, but this is their >own choice. > >>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. > >I agree, but to me this is one of the charms of more exotic chess variants. :-) >A matter of taste, of course. > >>>>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. > >To a certain extent this is true, but I think Kasparov would demand more money >to play an FRC match than a normal match. I'm just guessing, of course. > >>>>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?". > >That's why I did it, of course. :-) > >I just hacked the new castling rules, removed some parts of my evaluation >function, and changed my make_move and unmake_move functions to >calculate the piece lists from scratch every time a castling move is made >or unmade. > >But even if it is not a lot of work, why do it if nobody cares? Jorge is the >only person who has expressed any kind of interest in my FRC engine. > >>>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. >>:) > >SMP support is much more useful. It makes it easier to win tournaments >like the WCCC, which is nice for advertisement purposes. I think more >customers are interested in buying a program which is marketed as >the "computer chess world champion" than a program which is marketed >as being "stronger than Frenzee and Gothmog at FRC". >:-) > >Tord You really didn't hold anything back there, did you? I think Jorge might have had an epileptic attack after reading your post :) I haven't spent very much time studying openings either. I think you can get up to maybe 2000 rated without a lot of openings, but at that point its an absolute must. And even if you don't spend the time studying the theory itself, you still need to know the standard plans for each side in each opening. But I agree, FRC is one of the most boring chess variants out there. Capablanca/Gothic Chess looks much more interesting; I have never looked at hexagonal chess. However, I really see no need to alter the game of chess just because computers are good at it. I play humans, and we are both a *long* way from mastering the game. In fact, I think that chess as a game is beyond the ability of humans to master. Even Kasparov makes at least 1 mistake per game. anthony P.S. If I ever get the urge to switch boardgames, I'd much rather try Go over a chess variant. But I have invested so much time into regular chess that I probably never will.
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.