Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 07:12:18 01/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 20:00:19, Christophe Theron wrote: >I don't agree. The SSDF does a great job and their testing methodology is OK. > Christophe whatever you want, but i do stand to my point that the autoplayers have not brought us advantages. it is IMO a clear disadvantage that computerchess has been reduced to calling number as 12-16, 16-6 instead of concentrating on the game of chess. it is like talking about people, but not about them, only about how old they are. IMO the reason some programs make no progress has to do with CHESS and not with "how to make the autoplayer much trickier". Stefan Meyer Kahlen has given a nice interview in chessbits where he differenciates very clear between 1.How to make a program play stronger chess. 2.How to make a program play better in the ssdf-list. i can only subscibe to his statements and to his differenciations. for me, this is not ONE. you have to differenciate. there are methods to get a stronger (better ssdf-ranking) chess program without making the chess-engine any elo-points stronger. in human chess we call this: cheating, or psychologie of chess, e.g. when kasparov or other guys make big loud noise and drama whenever something happens, so that the opponent cannot concentrate. e.g. in box-fighting muhammed ali was well known for his dramatic-loud noise, to disturb the opponents concentration. you can discuss how much this has something to do with strength or beeing an asshole :-))
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.