Author: hgkjhg
Date: 19:27:43 12/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 1999 at 21:24:01, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On December 30, 1999 at 21:05:17, stuart taylor wrote:
>
>>I think that if any program can score atleast 50% against all opponents,
>>within four games, say each one having black and white twice one with QP
>>type opening and one with KP type opening-then that program is by far the
>>best of all of them.If you like, make it 6 or 8 games with the basic
>>different style openings for each-as both white and black.
>> Such a program, against its top class collegues of today I think would
>>qualify as the ideal program, with no real weaknesses, and could acheive
>>almost all the (sound) sacrificial masterpeices-those based on tactics,
>>and many of those based on (even long -term) possitional understanding-
>>which programs so far have not been at all reliable at seeing. It would
>>be extremely virtual human intelligence, and its games-very instructive.
>>It would likely be more worthy than deeper blue.
>> I can't agree with the opinion that he who is a "greater" player or program
>>should be seen as
>>a matter of opinion. It can be proven using the accurate criteria. The
>>intrinsic greatness of the players personality (or the ingenuity and
>>insight of the programmer or player) is quite another matter-I agree.
>> True, comparing playing strength isn't always so clear cut. But
>>when the gap is large, of cause it's patently clear.Therefore when small
>>it also exists.
>>Any comments?
>
>Yes. It does not work. The best program can lose ten times in a row. It is
>unlikely, but it can happen. The only answers you can get by playing programs
>{or humans for that matter} against each other are arguments from probability.
>
>Lots of times, we see SSDF results where program A wins the first 4 games and
>everyone starts proclaiming that program a giant killer. Then it loses 8 in a
>row. That's why the SSDF runs hundreds of games. Otherwise, it's just a shot
>in the dark.
>
>Intuition about strength of programs does not work.
may be programs shouldn't rely on their books so much. They should use only
solid lines and if they're truly the best, the results will show that. By the
way, fritz is the best against humans, definitely.
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.