Author: Claudio A. Amorim
Date: 06:43:18 09/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 1999 at 10:41:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Do you allways use this kind of vocabulary to disagree with, or correct someone? I'm not a native speaker, as you can see, but "hogwash" is surely a silly word to express "plain wrong". You bring me a new point to think about, but there's no need to be unkind, ok? 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". Just see the games. If you like chess, yoy'll agree. Anyway, I never said brute force isn't important. I just say it's only a technique, among others, that make a program really nice. >>When was the last time _another_ program beat Kasparov at 40/2 in a single >>game, much less in a match? When was the last time Kasparov played so badly and frightened as he did in that match? The last game, for instance (I mean the Caro-Kan), was a shame. Crafty, Hiarcs, Rebel, Fritz and Chessmaster, all would have won, after Kasparov's blunder in the opening. In other games, Rebel 9 suggests interesting improvements for both sides, even in tournment time analysis. And we have also the clear draw Kasparov blundered away (Qe3+, if I remember well), when he resigned that Ruy Lopez... > >You can't play _badly_ and pull that off. Deep Blue's play in efficient, but aesthetically unpleasant. As I said, it has no distinctive character. >> Sorry for the "hogwash" talk. Since I am new on the field, I have still a lot to learn. 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.