Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 10:06:45 11/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Bella... I have a problem with your way to see this so called "obstructionist" kind of playing. Its a word with bad echoes and so from the beginning tends to disaprove certain behaviour. Kind of logical fallacy that curbs the discussion. But then, if you avoid a bad move and you choose another one, why we must asume that this "other one" move is just a bit less bad or obtructionist or whatever? Cannot be that you second choice is really a good move? A move with positional, chess value? After all, if you put aside obviously bad or irrelevant moves -and certainly currenttop programs do that- the range of choice is not too big. Maybe in any position are three or at most 4 really sensible moves. Then, if you reject one or two that produces bad results in the sequence of moves to come, even because of a sheer matter of chance you can get the very best, although without knowing a shit about it. But then, what matters is the result, not the conscience of how to get there. Years ago I experimented with the old, now museum-piece-of-nostalgy Chess Challenger Champion. I puted it to play with the best move function and then with ramdom and soon I discovered that many times random produced better results. Why? Because even random was aplied to only a narrow set of decent moves -those above certain score, I presume- and so randomness let the computer to avoid many times the inbuilt mistakes of his "best" programming. Kisses from fernando
This page took 0.01 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.