Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 07:26:55 04/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 1999 at 23:47:51, blass uri wrote: > >On April 06, 1999 at 15:30:41, Brian Smith wrote: > >> >>>An interesting point of view. In my opinion it is possible to determine the >>>strongest positional program to be the one that comes out top the most on >>>positional 'decisions'. A lot of work has already been done in some circles in >>>this area, and although not particularly impressive compared with good human >>>chess players the 'knowledge programs' seem to do best (i.e. Hiarcs 7.01, >>>Rebel10c and MCP8...possibly in that order) >> >> >>What I don't understand is how CM, being a slow knowledge program, can be a >>bad(????: is it really?) positional program, but a tactical monster. > >I think that it is not a bad positional program relative to other programs. > >It sometimes finds tactics that other programs cannot find but it is also can be >the opposite. > >I looked at the thinking lines of CM6000 and it is a stupid searcher. >It most of the time search irrelevant lines and it proves that there is much to >improve in the search algorithems of programs. > >A slow searcher that know to search the right lines can be better than every >program in tactics. > >Uri I don't know about generic positions, but CM6000 is doing something right when it comes to mating attacks. Even CM4000 did. Other programs see +2, CM4000 would jump up to +8888, then either settle to "+9985" (which is mate in 12) or +1200. Maybe other programs have improved in this area as well since that time (whenever CM4000 was current.) Dave Gomboc
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.