Author: Vikrant Malvankar
Date: 02:42:08 03/01/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2006 at 03:49:04, Peter Skinner wrote: >On March 01, 2006 at 03:22:56, Vikrant Malvankar wrote: > >>Computers dont play Classical Chess. They just try to simulate Chess played by >>Humans. They have limited vision. (12-13 or so moves ahead). They depend on >>Opening books to get them into Middlegame, They dont play Endgames >>well.Tablebases are required?. Humans dont play perfect Chess but atleast >>players like Anand,kasparov,topalov dont depend on outside factors to play GM >>Chess. > >Anand, Topalov and other GM players do not depend on outside factors to play >chess? They don't use an opening library to prepare for opponents? And they >always play endgames the best? But Humans have knowledge of Opening principles which Computers lack. Using a Opening book is not a point here. Top GMS play opening variations, but if they face an inferior line or Novelty on Board they have a capability of refuting that based on knowledge of opening preparation and experience and of course intution(Their play might not be best at times but it can certainly be unnerving for opponents). Whereas if a Opening book of a program does not have a sideline than it will move out of book and calulate lines which might not be best for it in Opening phase sometimes. > >So learning opening theory is a waste of time right? You don't need to learn any >of that because GM's never book up against someone. Right.... They book up but they have capacity to react to surprises in the openings also. Their opening knowledge is not entirely bookish, If it had been bookish opening theory which Engines now use would not have been developed. > >GM always play endgames perfectly? Really? Sure.... Do u really think Programs play perfect Endgames? If so why they use Tablebases in late endgames? > >>Sure they dont know hw to play that kind of Chess which is still Legal Chess, >>Even though weird Chess. > >>Did he do it? and if it was because of some players winning on time then pablo's >>games will not go waste. > >Do you think the Anti-GM getting is there because it looks pretty or something? > >This is a pointless discussion because you don't even feel computers play chess. >They only simulate it. And they apparently cheat by using an opening library to >get them to the middle game, not that a GM would study opening theory for the >same purposes... > >Prodeo and Fruit 2.1 play a pretty mean endgame and they do not use tablebases, >so what is their excuse? > >Anyway.. I am done feeding the troll here. Have a good day. What is this? Its quite ok for me to close thie discussion and i think u dont have a point and also u did not go through my messages in detail and misunderstood them. So its better we stop. Have a good day. Regards Vikrant >Peter
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.