Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:41:04 09/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 1999 at 09:36:03, Claudio A. Amorim wrote: >On September 07, 1999 at 06:40:02, leonid wrote: > >>Brute force search is the base of good chess game. True or not true? > >Hi, Leonid, > >Deep Blue team think so, but I think they're far to prove it. In fact, Deep >Blue's game has not a distinctive character, except being extremly efficient. on >handling highly unbalanced positions. The top microcomputer programs (like Rebel >and Hiarcs), albeit much slower, display much more chess knowlegde than Deep >Blue. They surely handle positional play much better. >Brute force, in computer chess, is one of the means to achieve good results, but >must be mixed with other techniques, to deliver great chess. >Imagine Deep Blue without an openings book or a tablebase... It would play as >badly as any club player. Your last sentence it complete hogwash. DB is just like any other program that uses tablebases... they are only used in a relatively small percentage of the games, in only a small percentage of the moves in those games where they are used. In a couple of games, Kasparov took DB out of book on move 2. It appears to me that it played just fine, judging by the match result against him. The rest of your post has little technical merit, as I know of nothing that suggests that other programs "display much more chess knowledge". When was the last time _another_ program beat Kasparov at 40/2 in a single game, much less in a match? You can't play _badly_ and pull that off. > >Best regards, > >Cláudio.
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.