|
Home > Archive > Chess forum > November 2006 > Nomorechess cannot be beaten at GetClub.com
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Nomorechess cannot be beaten at GetClub.com
|
|
| help bot 2006-11-19, 9:05 pm |
|
Sanny wrote:
quote:
>
> Just have a broadband connection, And that is sufficient. I do not
> think connection is a big issue. Your Computer need to be fast and you
> should not work on 2 programs at a time.
Easier said than done. Where I live, there is (as far as
I know) only one available phone company, and this
recommendation of yours to have broadband has already
been tried, to no avail. It may not be too long before I can
get a WiMax connection, but until then I am stuck with
wireless internet access.
The problem I have noted several times now, of the program
losing ground and re-analysing a given ply which was already
completed earlier, appears to be the cause of many of your
complaints here regarding speed of play. It's not just me.
On the other hand, I observe that in most cases, my
current position looks as though it might well have come up
in a game between two random human players, and this is a
good sign. One poster recently complained that the program
failed to play with a plan -- which is absurd. Programs ought
not to have such plans, as they need to emphasise a key
advantage they have over humans: the ability to take a fresh
look at the position after each and every move. This ensures
that any tactical slips by the human opponent can be caught
and punished, and it also helps to compensate for the
horizon effect which plagues chess computers. Far from
taking a "planning" approach (if that can even be done), a
chess computer need only "float like a butterfly, sting like a
bee".
-- help bot
| |
| Daniel W. Rouse Jr. 2006-11-19, 9:05 pm |
| "help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161232228.708567.175530@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Sanny wrote:
>
>
>
> Easier said than done. Where I live, there is (as far as
> I know) only one available phone company, and this
> recommendation of yours to have broadband has already
> been tried, to no avail. It may not be too long before I can
> get a WiMax connection, but until then I am stuck with
> wireless internet access.
>
> The problem I have noted several times now, of the program
> losing ground and re-analysing a given ply which was already
> completed earlier, appears to be the cause of many of your
> complaints here regarding speed of play. It's not just me.
>
> On the other hand, I observe that in most cases, my
> current position looks as though it might well have come up
> in a game between two random human players, and this is a
> good sign. One poster recently complained that the program
> failed to play with a plan -- which is absurd. Programs ought
> not to have such plans, as they need to emphasise a key
> advantage they have over humans: the ability to take a fresh
> look at the position after each and every move. This ensures
> that any tactical slips by the human opponent can be caught
> and punished, and it also helps to compensate for the
> horizon effect which plagues chess computers. Far from
> taking a "planning" approach (if that can even be done), a
> chess computer need only "float like a butterfly, sting like a
> bee".
>
The game program engine first needs to understand "check", and what moves
are illegal when the King is in check. After one of my previous games was
analyzed to have an illegal move, and then the King was captured, I tried
this quick test game (computer is playing black):
1. f3 e5
2. Kf2 Nc6
3. Ke3 Bc5
4. f4
(illegal move since the White King is in check, but the program allowed it)
... Bxe3 (Bishop takes King and the board resets because it counts as a
win)
I'm not sure if this issue exists in player vs. player, but it's
reproducible when a player plays the computer at the beginner level.
Clearly, the King is being treated as just another piece, and by extension,
the program treats capturing the King as winning the game.
| |
| help bot 2006-11-19, 9:05 pm |
|
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
quote:
> The game program engine first needs to understand "check", and what moves
> are illegal when the King is in check. After one of my previous games was
> analyzed to have an illegal move, and then the King was captured, I tried
> this quick test game (computer is playing black):
>
> 1. f3 e5
> 2. Kf2 Nc6
> 3. Ke3 Bc5
>
> 4. f4
> (illegal move since the White King is in check, but the program allowed it)
>
> ... Bxe3 (Bishop takes King and the board resets because it counts as a
> win)
>
> I'm not sure if this issue exists in player vs. player, but it's
> reproducible when a player plays the computer at the beginner level.
> Clearly, the King is being treated as just another piece, and by extension,
> the program treats capturing the King as winning the game.
On top of this problem, the last move of every game is
simply cut off so one can only guess at the actual finish
when replaying saved games.
If the programmers figured out how to keep pieces from
jumping off the board (i.e.: K-e9), why can't they figure
out how to weed out illegal moves like capturing the King?
Another issue which ramains to be acknowleged, let alone
addressed, is the scoring of draws. I hesitate to complain
about this because it reveals my embarassing failure to
win EVERY game, but still. :>D
BTW, in my game in the same opening line, the computer
was thoroughly outplayed. I believe where you lost your
advantage was on move 3, when you attacked a bit
prematurely. (OTOH, against me the computer played the
silly ...Q-h4+.)
-- help bot
|
| |
|
|