Author: Ralph E. Carter
Date: 05:31:25 12/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 1998 at 06:30:47, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On December 30, 1998 at 03:42:15, Komputer Korner wrote: > >>On December 29, 1998 at 19:01:35, Ralph E. Carter wrote: >> >>>On December 29, 1998 at 15:51:39, Kenneth K. Quarshie wrote: >>> >>>> Should I add Nimzo 99 to my chess software collection (CB7, F532, H6 & J5)? >>>>The playing style of the program compared to the software that you own. Does >>>>the patch improve the program, or only against other programs? >>> >>>A very good way to study this is to go get the PGN of Nimzo 99 versus the other >>>top programs, posted by Enrique Irazoqui on rgcc. (Go to deja news and search on >>>Irazoqui.) >>> >>>After studying these games, I decided that the most chess-intelligent programs >>>are Hiarcs 7 and MCP 8. >> >>I agree. >>-- >>Komputer Korner > >What do you guys mean with chess-intelligent. >1) Is it about playing strength, anlyzing strength or something else? >2) Does it cover all phases of the game? > (IMHO, using table bases in the endgame is very intelligent..) >3) Is it more chess-intelligent if it's more human like? > >//Peter All of these observations are relative to my own strength and style. 1. Here is an example of chess-nonintelligence: Novag Expert. Brute force, full width, about 5 plies at 40/2. When I worked hard, I could contain its tactics. In such games, it was reduced to "stupid computer moves", useless random-looking moves unrelated to the strategic needs of the position. After figuring out how to deal with it, I won 6-0 at 40/2. Although this was probably good exercise, It just wasn't fun anymore. (I admit, I learned to respect knights more.) 2. Then came a revelation: Mephisto Berlin, a selective searcher. It appeared to have "ideas", like pushing the opponent into zugzwang in endings, especially. BUT, when I played EXTREMELY soundly, it would appear much too passive. I had A LOT OF TIME to continuously consolidate my position. (At the time, I thought I was playing "like" Karpov.) I finally scored +1 =5 -4 against it. But here is why I am looking for more: when I played this "extremely sound" style against strong humans, it didn't work. They would find ways to make the position gnarly. And I am not so good with gnarly. So, I rate my experience with Mephisto Berlin as harmful to ME. (Though I did learn something about the transition to the endgame.) 3. Now we have programs, all of which are overwhelmingly better than I, tactically. So, in order to have interesting games, I TURN THE LEVEL DOWN! Now, the program might not destroy me tactically. But, how does it play at the reduced level? One or two of the present TOP programs play a little bit like Novag Expert. 4. This is chess-intelligence to me, at this time: even with the level turned down, some of these programs almost continuously find interesting moves, leading to interesting plans. They don't give me TIME for delusions of Karpovianism. I must HURRY to get my chances before they get theirs, because waiting is hopeless. This is exactly what humans have been doing to me for years. 5. I am certain it will not harm me to learn from these programs. From my perspective (1803 USCF), the successful GM simulation is here, and my favorites are Hiarcs 7 and MCP 8.
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.