Author: KarinsDad
Date: 10:19:29 01/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 1999 at 01:59:39, Laurence Chen wrote: >I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your statements. It's like asking a GM >rated 2500+ to play at 1400 ELO which is impossible to accomplish. So what you >are asking is out of question. Huh? Were does these statements come from? A GM is programmed for life (unless he's like that Russian master who lost his memory during WWII and had to relearn how to move the pieces). A computer program can be programmed to do just about anything (within reason), even play a reasonable game of 1200 chess. This is not impossible, but it may be difficult (time consuming yes, difficult possibly). It just happens to not have been the focus of the commercial chess manufacturers. They have already resolved a lot of the problems with getting a program to play IM level or higher chess. But they haven't even attempted to really get a program which can properly challenge (note: challenge, not obliterate) a 1200 rated player. >Look at the chess literature available, they all >use chess master games, and very few books are written with games played by >amateurs, with exception of Max Euwe books, Amateur vs. Amateur, Amateur vs. >Chessmaster, and Silman, the Amateur's Mind. One of the major points of a computer chess program is to be able to play against it. It's real assuring (not) to the lower level players that the programs are currently designed to challenge IMs and GMs. >You won't find a single chess >magazine quoting games played by amateurs. Chess Life has amateur games in every issue, as does every state newsletter in the US. >So how would you expect chess >programmers come up with chess engines which plays like a 1200, or 1400? >Besides, I have no idea anymore how such players play nor how they think. Players at that level have limitations due to lack of experience. The do try to follow the basic guidelines of the game (control the center, castle early, develop knights before bishops), but may not know to place rooks behind passed pawns. Also, their tactical ability is more flawed than a stronger player. For example, a 1200 rated player sees a 3 move combination. What (s)he may not see is that the combination is not forced and does not realize that the opponent does not have to follow through with the moves that the 1200 player expected. The tactical engines of current chess programs use MinMax techniques which by default, ignore or drop lines which are not forcing. The backbone of their entire search engine is one of pruning lines which the opponent can easily gain equality or an advantage by playing a given move. Human players attempt to do that, however, are a lot less successful at it (especially the lower rated players). >It is >the lack of knowledge and understanding chess positions which separate chess >players into different classes. And when programmers create personalities to >play specifically at this ELO, people complain that the engines are unrealistic. That's the entire point of the post. The programmers spend a lot of time on functionality (such as the strongest engine in the world, at least for this month) which isn't very helpful to the majority of players. It's great that the strong programs can analyze the game well. It's awful that the strong programs cannot play a reasonable (i.e. human-like) lower rated game. >Even the top chess engines available are not very good nor very strong at >endgame play, and they certainly don't play all middlegames positions correctly. >So as you can see from these chess engines, it is their ability to play some >types of positions so well that give them such strength. And if chess engines >played at amateur levels, I don't think they would sell a lot, because people >would find playing Adventure games or Computer Strategic Wargames far more >interesting to play than amateur chess engines. Chess players the world over want to play against programs at an equal or slightly better ability level than theirselves for practice purposes. Chess programs give players the ability to play or practice when and where they want to as opposed to having to go to a tournament when it is scheduled. Even the internet has limitations such as you must be connected to it (it's hard to play on a cross country bus trip unless you have a laptop, a cell phone, and real good batteries) and you could be playing against a computer anyway on the internet (due to cheating). People would pay good money (and thought that they were in the past) for a program that played a lot more realistic chess at various levels. >If this were not so, why would >Mindscape, the producer of Chessmaster stop selling chess engines which play at >amateur levels and start selling improved versions every year, with each year a >stronger engine, and now with one which plays at GM strength? It's like the space race. Both sides wanted to be faster, get there first, be the best. And when it comes to chess strength, it IS important to have a strong engine for analysis purposes. I do not disagree with you on that point. However, the focus has mostly been on strength (note: not completely, I realize that a lot of effort has been spent on opening book editors, sounds, graphics, language analysis, etc.). The current breed of engines have a LOT more chess knowledge in them then even from a few years ago. The focus HAS been on having the engines play more human-like moves, but ONLY at the highest levels. Unfortunately, the major portion of the market is with lower rated players. KarinsDad >On January 18, 1999 at 01:14:05, KarinsDad wrote: > [snip]
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.