13 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodengines are still quite clueless without the human-made opening books
openings for one. engines are still quite clueless without the human-made opening books. they're not that good at endgame (or any other) strategy either, unless they're allowed to rely on pre-computed tablebases. they can't crack that stuff in realtime.
in fact the only thing they do well, is calculation. human players still tend to try bea e same exact crap it's been for decades. case in point: zappa engine.
Switch off the opening book and let's see an example of how clueless it plays the opening.
they're not that good at endgame (or any other) strategy either, unless they're allowed to rely on pre-computed tablebases
What's your FIDE rating estimate of Rybka without tablebases?
In order to try to prove that engines aren't that good, you use arguments based on disabling parts of their ability. That in itself proves a point.
incapable of understanding the data it's fed with
Ok, it's not alive. It's not conscious. We agree on that. But such factors do not prevent it playing chess to a very high level.
it's still the same exact crap it's been for decades
Which engine from previous decades is closely matched to Rybka (assuming they were to run on equal hardware)?
13 Jul 09
4 edits
Originally posted by VarenkaYou beat me to the punch varenka. Much of what he said was true back in the early days of computer chess development, but certainly not today. It sounds like he read an article on computer chess and didn't notice that it was written in 1980.
[b]engines are still quite clueless without the human-made opening books
Switch off the opening book and let's see an example of how clueless it plays the opening.
they're not that good at endgame (or any other) strategy either, unless they're allowed to rely on pre-computed tablebases
What's your FIDE rating estimate of Rybka without tab ous decades is closely matched to Rybka (assuming they were to run on equal hardware)?[/b]