Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 10:31:39 12/28/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2004 at 07:53:40, Marc wrote: >What is considered to be the most attractive feature of a chess engine? Is it >the ability to crush all the other monsters (which probably isn't the same as >objective strength), is it playing style, or?? Do people still fight them? And >if so, which engines are considered the most interesting to play? > >As a draughts-player I dislike playing programs because sometimes it's hard to >even recognise the game. The game of the machine is tough to crack, and it is >often dangerous, but there is a very obvious lack of real 'understanding'. These >programs are not nearly as evolved as modern chess engines, btw. Does playing a >modern chess engine still give you this sensation? To my knowledge, there is no test suite of positions for which there is both a human-like move and a different machine-like move. Accordingly, it's impossible to quantify rigorously the extent to which any particular engine is human-like versus machine-like. Would be nice to work up such a set of positions, which might consist mostly of closed games, I don't know. One way to identify computer moves might be to look at computer novelties in well known lines of opening theory, at least, those novelties that have "caught on." The assumption here is that since human grandmasters couldn't find the computer novelty, the novelty lacks the human quality. Presumably, computers nowadays are so good that it is difficult to distinguish those moves that are purposeless from that create a very delicate balance between the multiple needs of offense and defense that might characterize any given position. What appears purposeless may just be an exquisite balance of objectives. Proving that to be case, however, is another story. Roger
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.