Author: Stefan Schiffermüller
Date: 05:54:50 01/03/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2006 at 19:45:19, stuart taylor wrote: >On January 02, 2006 at 19:14:30, Stefan Schiffermüller wrote: > >>On January 02, 2006 at 12:05:10, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On January 02, 2006 at 10:35:19, Stefan Schiffermüller wrote: >>> >>>>On January 02, 2006 at 07:55:53, stuart taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>Fritz too. >>>>> >>>>>That, IF there will bwe any talking option, during game, that it should be done >>>>>with great style, and even though more than one option of talk style, might be a >>>>>very good option, but >>>>>a major option, being the main option, should be >>>>> >>>>>An intelligent commentary on the game! >>>>> >>>>>As intelligent and relevant as possible, but I certainly do not expect >>>>>perfection. But the very idea of it can help some people to think, when playing >>>>>informally. >>>>> >>>>>It should also be that after a comment which took a few seconds to come up, a >>>>>later comment can be made with even more knowledge, perhaps after another minute >>>>>of thinking time. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks and hopes >>>>> >>>>>S.Taylor >>>> >>>>I think a talking option or an option for an 'intelligent' commentary is more >>>>fun then serious. You can never expect an intelligent informally commentary by a >>>>computer. Not in the next 100 years!! You can never replace a commantary of an >>>>strong human player with a computer!! Therfore such an option would be funny but >>>>not serious. Look at the 'intelligent' Fritz commentaries ! >>> >>>Do you mean there is an improved commentary than what there used to be? I was >>>only familiar with the Fritz 5.32 one, which was funny but stupid. >>>But anything better, is good. >>> >>I was never intrested in informal computer commentaries. I don't know about an >>improvement. They must be stupid anyway. > >Fritz 5.32 IS fun for the first few times, but quite stupid. So that spoils the >fun, too. But you get to start thinking if what it is saying makes sense or not. For this reason you don't need informal commentries. Some evaluation numbers for king safety, pawn structure are enough. An informal commentry like "king in danger" would only be mean that the number for king safty is above a special value. >But if it is sooooo stupid, then it's not so interesting anymore. >But i'm sure it could be greatly improved. >> >>>> >>>>Realistic is that you can have more insight in the evalluation function. You >>>>will not only have one number for the whole evaluation to watch but more >>>>numbers: king safety, pawn structure ... So the analysing of the game should be >>>>easier. >>>> >>>>Stefan >>> >>>In the past, people have also mocked at my idea, but I still personally feel it >>>is good for the psychological atmosphere, and helps the pleasure aspect of >>>using your brain, even if the comments are only mildly correct, but as much as >>>possible. It still stimulates ME to think more, than without it. It also helps >>>to combat other distractions around, because your ears are tuned to the game, >>>and not to background stresses. >>> >>>_I_ for one, am always a very grateful recipient of sucxh a program with that >>>option, but the the stronger the program, the better. >>> >>>It involves more of your brain. >>> >>>S.Taylor >> >>Computer commentaries for fun and for other psychological reasons I could >>imagine.
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.