Author: Harvey Williamson
Date: 23:40:24 09/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 01, 2005 at 21:25:48, Derek Paquette wrote: >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. Don't foreget Hiarcs 8 Bareev was only playing on a P4 2.0 ghz > >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.