Author: Theo van der Storm
Date: 11:16:50 08/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2005 at 16:08:18, Terry McCracken wrote: >On August 22, 2005 at 15:20:28, Theo van der Storm wrote: > >>On August 22, 2005 at 13:53:50, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2005 at 10:44:18, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>> >>>>On August 22, 2005 at 09:25:17, Andreas Schwartmann wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 22, 2005 at 07:58:30, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>why did he thought he would win ? >>>>>> >>>>>>wasn't he warned from mainz ? >>>>> >>>>>That was just FRC, not serious chess. >>>>> >>>>>Andreas >>>>? >>>>where is your ":-))" ? >>>> >>>>FRC is 960x serious chess. >>> >>>What? Are you a messenger of Fischer? FRC is played for fun not in ernest. The >>>only advantage/disadvantage is you can't build good books easily for 960 >>>starting position, hence theory and study of the openings is out the window! >>> >>>It's Fairy Chess and you can't tune your engine by studying such games in >>>standard chess. >>> >>>Terry >> >>Chess960 is not the same game as chess. >>This is especially true in combination with the Fischer clock. >>However, that doesn't make it "Fairy Chess". > >It's not classical chess, it's an aberration of classical chess. I guess it >deserves another name than "Fairy Chess" but it's not conventional chess and >will not replace modern chess as some claim. I think it's fair to say it will not replace normal chess within 5 years. >>In Mainz August 2005 Chess960 HAS BECOME a serious game >>for both computers and humans. There are now plenty of grandmaster and IM who >>take it seriously and all of a sudden, thanks to Richard Pijl, Stefan MK >>and 17 other programmers (2-18), there is a substantial field of programs. > >Most if not all GM's and IM's, mature ones, don't take it as seriously as >"normal" chess. I didn't write "AS seriously", so what you write doesn't take anything away from what I wrote. >I suspect they never will. I suspect that FRC in computer chess is a greater >challenge and many programers will have a great interest in FRC. Books will >really be a tough challenge. You suspect a lot. Books will not be challenge and they will be much less important then in normal chess. There will be automatically generated shallow books for each starting position for three purposes: 1. Good quality first few moves. 2. Avoid known traps and repetition of earlier games. This will be a continuous evolution of the book. 3. Gain some time. >>Apart from the speed at which it happened, >>I cannot say I'm surprised about those programs. >>It is troublesome for a chess programmer to find a good opening book author, >>since there are so few of them and it's so time-consuming to prepare for good >>opening play both on the program and the book side. >>Thus throwing opening practice - with my science background I refuse to call it >>theory - out of the window is very attractive to them. >>They can focus on their real interest, i.e. programming. >>Opening phase evaluation would be a good starter... >>There is plenty of opportunity - no necessity! - for elegant programming, >>because they won't get away with hard-coded constructs anymore. I was referring to the source code. >Without solid opening constructs, theory, then chess is incomplete. Yes, I'm not writing about chess. >FRC is incomplete. It's a complete game. >The opening phase is still chess, no less then the middlegame and >endgame. No, it is not due to the special castling rules. Theo >>I'm not suggesting to get rid of good old Chess just yet, though :-) > >I would hope not! > >Terry >> >>Theo van der Storm
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.