Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Bean counters argument

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 10:23:46 11/19/99

Go up one level in this thread


On November 19, 1999 at 03:08:35, Bernhard Bauer wrote:

>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do I have a defective disc or is Nimzo 7.32 a defective program in this
>>>>>area? Or have I missed something?
>>>>>
>
>>
>>There is no contradiction.
>>you do not lose more than few elo ratings by not knowing KBN vs K and KBB vs K
>>
>>Uri
>
>This is the typical bean counters argument: Rating points.
>You do not lose more than a few rating points by not knowing this and that,
>so what you get is kind of a cripple chess with some nice features like the
>insufficient material feature.
>I want a chess program to be able to play chess in *any* possible position.
>Every thing else is poor. I don't mind about rating points in computer chess.
>Kind regards
>Bernhard

The programs are generalists, and that is the problem.  There are some specific
cases they do not handle well.  KBN vs K in particular requires an extra
heuristic in order to perform well.  In a normal endgame position you will not
try to force the opposing king to the corner that is the same color as the
bishop, but this bit of information is extremely important in KBN vs K.

So unless you program some extra help in, a program will play that ending
sub-optimally.

There are always going to be positions that the program doesn't understand as
well as a person, since it is different from a person.

You are right to demand that specific rare yet interesting cases be covered,
though.

This probably applies just as well in the middlegame.  Computers play their type
of game very well, and this is sufficient to do well in most middlegames, but
there is obviously a lot of room for improvement.

bruce



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.