Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 15:13:32 06/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 1999 at 07:28:23, Phil Dixon wrote: >On June 26, 1999 at 02:10:29, Dave Dory wrote: > >>It's VERY ENLIGHTENING to watch a Master or GM who is familiar with playing >>against computers, just take out the hinge pins from those tiny little silicon >>gates! >> >>As Dr. Hyatt amongst others have noted, most computer chess players really ARE >>not up to the standards of the human GM's. Even Deep Blue, who had ZERO >>published games for G.K. to study over, was really quite fortunate to win their >>abbreviated "match". Props to D.B., and it is (was?) a truly extraordinary piece >>of hardware and software, but I think everyone also knows it was a lucky little >>chap, also. >> >>The reason you don't see positional sacs in computer vs. computer games is >>simply because programmers who have tried to introduce this knowledge into their >>program have found, rather dreadfully, that the program will now sacrifice it's >>material quite readily, until it has no hope of winning!! >> >>The horizon effect has been pushed back, by both hardware and software advances, >>but it has not been pushed beyond the horizon of a really good chess player - >>one who's familiar with the program, and has done his/her homework. >> >>Efforts to SOMEHOW increase the knowledge of the program, apart from the info in >>the game tree or end game data bases are (IMO) very challenging. We shouldn't be >>surprised since we still have to TELL the program how to win many end games, >>move by move! >> >>[ My P.O.V ] >> >>What I would love to see is an emphasis on programs that use NO opening book, >>and NO end game data. NOW we can play the program, and see what the program >>really knows, NOT HOW SMART THE OPENING AND/OR END GAME DATA BASES ARE!! >> >>If the program can't play a good opening, on it's own, it should be made to do >>so. If the program can't play an ending correctly, it should NOT BE ABLE TO JUST >>LOOK UP PROPER PLAY MOVES IN A MAMMOTH DATA FILE. It should be programmed to >>solve endings, on it's own, over the board. >> >>** NOT JUST LOOK IT UP!! ** >> >>I know from experience, that most computer chess enthusiasts don't agree, but it > >I know from experience that it can be a daunting task to play against the >program with its' huge, carefully constructed opening book. I never will be >able to compete on an equal basis with that kind of database. For "rated" >games, I think the program has an unfair advantage. > >>strikes me as CLEARLY unsportsmanlike to allow the human no books or printed >>data (let alone a computer) of any kind, while at the same time, allowing the >>computer to possibly dig out a great move from some internet resource halfway >>around the world, or look through millions of move sequences laid out on it's >>own hard disk. >> >>[ Just my P.O.V ] >>( program reports soap box safely stored away for later use! ;-) ) >> >> >>Dave ------- What do you mean? Grandmasters know memorized lines of hundreds of openings! They dont go into a tournament not knowing anything about the opening, so it would be also unfair to make a computer play with out its opening book. ------ Terry
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.