Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 10:06:21 06/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2004 at 11:18:49, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>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. If 1 in 50 are interested in FRC, isn't that still 1 in 50? Perhaps 1 in 30 are interested in an SMP engine, but SMP is 1000 times harder to implement so if you want to do something for the customers, why not begin with FRC. >>>>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". >>:-) Perhaps, but what about the title of "computer FRC world champion"? :) Honestly I don't think winning WCCC matters, what matters is getting a match against Kasparov. WCCC doesn't seem to be opening that door. I think WCCC is mostly a gettogether for programmers, the "title" can't be that important or we would see Tiger, The King, Rebel, Ruffian and the others fighting for it too. >>Tord > >You really didn't hold anything back there, did you? I think Jorge might have >had an epileptic attack after reading your post :) At first sight it may seem like computers should have a tougher time without books than humans, ie. humans will still understand the basic strategies on how to develop better. The question is how much of an ordeal it is for humans to face completely new patters already from the opening. Programs on the other hand I wouldn't expect to have trouble in that area, they don't do patterns very well anyway. >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. I don't really understand Tord's point of view here, I am sure you can play club level chess without needing to read a lot, however anyone that do read the books also seem to get advantages from that. I don't know how many times I've walked into opening traps against 1400 rated players :) As soon as they are out of the opening they start to throw away pieces to 2-3 move combinations though. >But I agree, FRC is one of the most boring chess variants out there. If FRC is broing then Chess is boring, because it was never intended to be a variant as such. FRC is what you end up with, when you take "chess minus opening theory". The whole idea is to change as little as possible so it reamains the _same_ game, only one "problem" removed. Most chess players like the game and are not interested in strange variants, yet they might still be bored with all the theory, those are the ones who should be looking towards FRC for a solution. So if you are bored with Chess and want to play something else, then I agree that FRC is an innovation that will not satisfy you. >Capablanca/Gothic Chess looks much more interesting; I have never looked at >hexagonal chess. I tried a few games of Gothic, in the middle of the opening I was suddenly mated in 1. I never saw it comming, I just couldn't picture the attacked squares of the new pieces. I don't know how long it takes to adjust to that, but if feels like a whole new game to me, quite far from chess. >However, I really see no need to alter the game of chess just >because computers are good at it. Neither do I, I don't think computers had any role in the making of FRC either. I think it was proposed specificly to get people to spend less time with their heads burried in books and more time playing eachother. >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. Chess is funny that way, because when you play it you can almost feel that you have control :) You can't calculate every tactical shot, but positionally you know you're sound. -S.
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.