Author: John Warfield
Date: 23:43:38 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 16:59:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 13, 1999 at 16:23:43, John Warfield wrote: > >>On December 13, 1999 at 15:09:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 13, 1999 at 14:58:30, walter irvin wrote: >>> >>>>On December 12, 1999 at 20:40:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 17:24:52, John Warfield wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you please tell me what your 2450 projection is for, on what machine? >>>>>>Also I am curious what you would rate the best computer programs on these >>>>>>platforms 1. Amd 600 2. Amd 300 3 MMX 200 >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I think the best of today's programs, on the best of today's hardware, is >>>>>playing at a 2450 (roughly) level (FIDE rating). I don't think cutting the >>>>>hardware speed by a factor of 2, nor doubling the hardware speed, would make >>>>>any significant change... The problem is that the programs are good tactically, >>>>>but have significant positional holes that speed won't help. >>>>> >>>>>I think programs will continue to improve, but only as those 'holes' are >>>>>covered up solidly... >>>> >>>>do you believe that there are certain types of positions that computers play >>>>better than humans and if so is it posible to gear the programs style and >>>>opening book toward that goal .also what effect would haveing 4 or 5 different >>>>engines with completely different styles available to the program have vs human >>>>if the program randomly chose a different engine every 4 or 5 moves?????? that >>>>asuming that all the engines were strong . >>> >>> >>>1. "Do I believe that there are..." Yes. I remember playing a game using >>>Cray Blitz at the 1984 US Open, against a 2400 (USCF) player. He finally >>>resigned, saying "this was impossible for me... pieces pinned, pieces >>>threatened, pieces on one side of the board attacking things on the other... >>>It was just too much to keep up with..." >>> >>>2. "Is it possible to gear ..." Yes and No. A GM has a _lot_ to say about >>>what happens in a game. If he plays for a draw, it is _very_ difficult to avoid >>>drawing, without taking substantial risk. If he plays for a win, you have a >>>good chance of leading the game into interesting positions. But forcing the >>>game into wild tactics is simply not possible. The program has to be prepared >>>to play tactical lines, and also to handle strategic lines, or it won't have a >>>chance against a GM. >> >> >> How has rebel managed to Draw atleast 5 times against grandmaster players if >>it plays so stretigically bad?? > > >Exactly _where_ did I say "Rebel has played strategically bad"??? > >Or did your imagination run away? No you didn't actually say it in this thread, but based on reading some of your other post, I get the impression that you think chess programs in general (not just rebel) have very little strategic understanding, their only good point being very strong tactics. Now it is possible that I am misuderstanding you.
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.