Author: Derek Paquette
Date: 18:25:48 09/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 2005 at 19:17:56, Tony Nichols wrote: >Hello George, > I am not a programmer, but I definitley believe there is a difference between >beating other programs and beating human players. All chess engines are strong >in tactics. Many GM games are lost just because a player missed a tactic. If you >design your program to value tactical positions it would probably do better >against humans. However, Against other programs this would not be the best way >to win. Other programs would very often handle the tactics well and then what >have you got? It's funny to hear the statement from chessbase that their >concentrating on beating human GM's. This might have been an interesting goal 10 >years ago. Today amatuer programs are beating GM's, So what is chessbase really >saying? They also claim that their trying to make Fritz more of an instructive >tool. I am all for this, But they don't really say how. >Regards >Tony > >P.S. I of course will buy Fritz 9 as soon as it comes out:) There is no evidence for this however, HiarcsX (hiarcs9) are argueable the strongest positional programs and hiarcs couldn't even win a single game vs Bareev who didn't have an army of grandmasters plotting his moves ahead of time for him. It couldn't come up with the win in my opinion because it simply was not strong enough. 6 games is a lot of games to get atleast ONE win
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.