Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:03:38 05/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2005 at 18:51:15, Pablo Ignacio Restrepo wrote: >Dr Robert Hyatt. > >I am trying to imagine, what could be the close future, maybe at lest in the 10 >next years, for many Top engines. >FIRST POSIBILITY. If chess computer-programmers of many Top engines, like, for >example, Chess Master, Hiarcs, Rebel, Fritz, Shredder, Junior, etc, don’t fix >and modified the engines, these engines are going to continue being or having a >great power in the standard settings like the power of a Top GM and more power >in Ortodhox lines, but these engines are going to continue being an easy an >simple opponent to beat in all time control games, across antichess technique. >SECOND POSIBILITY. If chess computer-programmers of many Top engines try to fix >the engine across modification of value of pawns opponent (more value for pawn >opponent), for example, these engines that will be fixing, will be losing in the >battle against other engines that wont be modified. >THIRD POSIBILITY. All Top engines are going to have a special setting >ANTI-HUMAN. But I wonder: What are going to make the chess programmers with the >estándar setting? Won’t fix this? And when human beings put the engine in the >PC where are going to be open the engines, in what setting? >FORTH POSIBILITY. Everybody to forgot and to ignore the problem (antichess) and >to continue building engines that be as strong as a dragon and as fool as a >chicken. Now… Human beings finally are going to play against the chicken at lest >to be studied and suicide, and human beings are going to forget the dragon >combat, at lest that human beings only want to be into a fight and chess train. >FIFHT POSIBILITY. But I wonder … What are going to be happening with Top Man Vs >Machine Challengers? Are they going to introduce a modification to the classic >chess parameters by pressure of amateur development? >D Robert Hyatt. In order with the last ideas… What do you think about the >antichess problem? It is very important to understand that it is not the same >the antichess technique that the IM Levy concept. Antichess is an extreme way >that can easy be use systematically against top engines to win. >It is an extreme way that only could be destroying across the wall destruction. >Will be the wall to knock down and the human being that want to play just in the >first 3 lines beating? >Best regard, >Pablo Restrepo This is a very precarious balancing act. There are ways to combat "anti-computer" chess. But these approaches have a couple of down-sides as well. 1. If you struggle too hard to avoid blocked pawn positions, you can ultimately wreck your position in doing so, if your opponent is very strong and can search deeply enough to push you into a bad corner. 2. If you do too much of the above, your program can tend to play worse in normal-type chess positions, which means overall you end up a bit weaker... It is a tough thing to balance, and if it isn't balanced, things go out of kilter quickly...
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.