Author: Bella
Date: 10:56:53 11/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 1999 at 13:06:45, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi Bella... Hi Fernando, >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. I think I meant that while move z in the move stream was poor, that doen't necessarily condemn move a. The side playing can always change the sequence later. Don't forget that 'a' also got chosen because it passed all its other tests in the tree. So it can't be all bad. Bella 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, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.