Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 22:53:47 06/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2004 at 18:22:13, Fernando Villegas wrote: Hi Fernando, >I think I thought deep enough, Sandro. In fact I went further than the issue >about professional Vs mass public products you have examined. BOTH kind of >proframs are equally stronger than any of us, right? No. If I am still able to improve the opening book of a chess program by correcting the moves in the book, select the moves for the program and add new moves to it, it means that the program is not stronger than me. Some people here think that to make a good opening book it is enough to get a huge database and create a book based on the score of these moves. I could have done that in 1978, but I chose a different system and I am still improving it adding and changing moves. >So the deeper point, >Sandro, is why to buy them, why to be hostage of this desire that conduce to >no place. Well, I am personally not satisfied of the performance of the stronger programs and hope/try to contribute to have them stronger hoping they will be able to get at least 400 points stronger. Of course this will take time. >What you call a professional program is probable different stuff for karpov or >Kramnnik. For them they are toys, but we are trying to create toys that bring novelties in the opening and that can help people to create their own playing repertoir by giving a correct ECO opening selection. This is what I call a professional opening book and consequently a chess program. >For us it means a thing. I mean people, real people playing the >programs, not people playing program vs programs. I do not play program versus programs. I may test variations using chess programs; it is different... >And so my point comes to the fore: if we, real perople, does not need more >professional or mass market products, we in fact we could need a kind of real >teacher program capable to enhance our playing skills, not just a coach saying >you blundered or just showing the best line or putting a mess of intrincated >variations in a dialog. I do agree with you that the coaching features can be improved a lot, but to be able to be a good coach/teacher the program should be strong enough and include an updated and powerful book too. Otherwise it may will have a better coaching system by showing "cazzate" (this is not a nice Italian word, which is quite used here in Italy which means telling wrong things). How can you rely on a coach if following his suggestion after a few moves you are lost? >All that is sometimes silly and sometimes boring to death. I hope you may see "the professional" programs in a different way. To me is interesting something that put me in trouble and that I have to think to solve the problem and improve my way to play indirectly. Maybe other people find this boring...we are not all the same... >But as much programmers only see the two oposite poles, the "professional" >chess player and the "mass market" one, the one you say only push the pieces, >but not the intermediate, decently strong but not enough strong player, then >we will have once and again the very same "Even More Pro X" and "Even more >marketish program Y". >I just got bored of all that. Of course you are free to feel as you prefer, but maybe I showed you something which you did not considered well enough.. >My bes >Fernando Ciao Sandro
This page took 0.01 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.