Author: John Warfield
Date: 14:06:31 12/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 1999 at 09:22:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 14, 1999 at 02:43:38, John Warfield wrote: > >>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. > > >That is an _entirely_ different statement. And yes, I think _all_ programs >are weak strategically. Ok then this takes me back to my original question, How Can a program like rebel draw a Grandmaster five times if it is strategically weak? Tactics alone cannot do this? There are too many things they don't know. They are >managing to get by on tactics, until the opponents start taking an active role >in avoiding those kinds of positions. You only have to watch on ICC to see >_every_ program have strategic problems... > >Rebel being not particularly worse (or better) than any other program. It is >a serious problem.
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.