Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 08:22:16 06/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2004 at 08:20:53, Jorge Pichard 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. > >Frederic Friedel is one of the key mem at Chessbase, and produces a sucessful >magazine in Germany, (Computer Schac und Spiele = Computer Chess and Games). He >put forward an interesting view of the computers versus humans battle. His >feeling is that in certain percentage of chess positions that are liable to >arise in practice - maybe 20%- the computer is far stronger than the best >humans, and will win practically the whole time. Equally, there is a percentage >of positions where the computers will stand no chance against the top players- >also perhaps 20% at the moment. While the game is in the 60% no-man's-land in >the middle, things are very finely balanced, and the human's task is to reach >the good 20% rather than stumble into the bad 20%. The computer, of course, is >oblivious to this struggle, though the programmers may try to bias it toward >playing human-hostile chess. > >Frederic's view, therefore, is that while these percentages will become worse >for the humans as computers get fasters, there will still be scope for humans to >steer the game into the, say, 5% of positions where the computer has no chance, >while avoiding the 40% where the computer rules supreme. At some point, though, >this will cease to be possible, as the slightest, most imperceptible inaccuracy >(in the sense of allowing a computer-friendly position) will throw the player >into the abyss. > >Jorge He's almost certainly right. 5 years ago, no one cared about anti-computer chess. GMs have held off the flood by adapting, but they can only adapt so far. And computers are getting better at closed positions; it is just a matter of adding more knowledge. I say: who cares. I don't see the need to change the game of chess just because computers are good at it. If it bothers you, learn to play Go . . . anthony >>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? >> >>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 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? 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. >> >>>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. >> >>>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. 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. >> >>Tord
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.