Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 29th 05, 10:18 PM
The Man Behind The Curtain
 
Posts: n/a
Default Computers vs. human opponents -- differences

It seems to me that one thing I never, or rarely, see computers do is
play wild sacrafices, the sort of out-of-nowhere moves that earn "!!"
comments in chess books. They seem to have a more deliberate, clinical
(for want of a better word) style of playing.

Even when I play the Chessmaster personality Tal it never makes the kind
of lightning moves that the real Tal played--at least in my (admittedly
limited) experience playing the CM Tal. I played two rather
conventional games against him, and never saw a wild, Tal-like move
despite the bio on the computer. Of course, I was desperately trying to
contain my opponent by playing closed games both times (and I rather
succeeded until the endgame), but still, based on my limited experience
with the computer Tal and the real Tal there seemed to be a big
stylistic difference. In fact, I found the Waitzkin personality much
more aggressive than Tal.

Would others agree? And what other differences do people here notice
between computer play and human-style play? In what areas can computers
still be improved?



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

  #2   Report Post  
Old September 30th 05, 08:36 AM
Mike B
 
Posts: n/a
Default

How many personalities does Chess master have ?

TAL , + ???

Have you beaten the TAL personality yet ?

  #3   Report Post  
Old September 30th 05, 09:26 AM
David Richerby
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[ -- rgc.misc as the computer content has gone away. ]

The Man Behind The Curtain wrote:
It seems to me that one thing I never, or rarely, see computers do is
play wild sacrafices, the sort of out-of-nowhere moves that earn "!!"
comments in chess books. They seem to have a more deliberate, clinical
(for want of a better word) style of playing.

Even when I play the Chessmaster personality Tal it never makes the kind
of lightning moves that the real Tal played--at least in my (admittedly
limited) experience playing the CM Tal. I played two rather
conventional games against him, and never saw a wild, Tal-like move
despite the bio on the computer.


Tal has a reputation for playing these amazing moves but could somebody
who's familiar with his games tell us roughly how often he played them?
The popular perception is that he would play at least one amazing
sacrifice per game but surely the reality must be less exciting than
that. I suppose the question is rather hard to answer because any sort of
`Tal's Best Games' book will include the exciting games and omit any ones
where he grinds his opponent down over 150 moves in an orthodox QGD...


Dave.

--
David Richerby Sumerian Sword (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ razor-sharp blade that's really old!
  #4   Report Post  
Old September 30th 05, 05:04 PM
The Man Behind The Curtain
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike B wrote:
How many personalities does Chess master have ?

TAL , + ???

Have you beaten the TAL personality yet ?


Stalmated twice. Lost to it once.



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

  #5   Report Post  
Old October 2nd 05, 07:48 AM
Mike B
 
Posts: n/a
Default

How many personalities does it have ?

You must be a very good player .

Which personality gives you the most problems and can you really tell a
difference in styles when you play the different ones ?

My computer is called IVAN , right now it is playing a computer called
VC64 ....

our position

My computer is WHITE and it plays that color on the 7th and 8 th
ranks...

White
ROOKS - A-8 and H-8
PAWNS- A-7,B-7,C-7,D-5 , E-5, G-7,H-7, ...
KING - D-8
QUEEN- E-8
KNIGHT- G-8 and C-6
Bishops E-7 and F-5...

BLACK PIECES

ROOKS A-I and H-I
KING - D-I
QUEEN- E-I
KNIGHTS- C-3 and F-3
BISHOPS- F-I and G-5
PAWNS A-2 , B -2 , C-2 , E-2 , F-2 , G-2,-H- 2

Blacks move ......... He mite send me his move Sunday ......This has
been a good game...



  #6   Report Post  
Old October 2nd 05, 10:11 PM
The Man Behind The Curtain
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike B wrote:
How many personalities does it have ?

You must be a very good player .


Hardly. But I can play certain types of positions a lot better than
others. I am weak on tactics, especially compared to computers, but
strong positionally, so if I play a positional-type personality, and I
play a closed game, I can often hold my own into the endgame. Now, the
endgame is where I usually screw up, oftentimes with a mistake that a
1000 player wouldn't make. (I really need to force myself to learn to
get better in the endgame, but honestly I find most endgame positions to
be boring. People who can force themselves to study the endgame have my
deepest admiration.) But earlier in the game I can keep some of the CM
personalities (Nimzowitch, Petrosian) on their toes.

If I play a strong fighting player like Waitzkin or Fischer, I'm toast
most of the time.

I'm trying to learn to keep closed against the attacking personalities
now, as well as handle the random, "coffee-house" type of players the
game has, which can throw me sometimes. That's the wonderful thing
about CM and why for outright realistic playing (as opposed to analyzing
and cataloging games) I like it MORE than Fritz: the variety of play is
astonishing. I really feel like I'm in a huge club with an enormous
cross-section of players at all levels. There aren't even any hygene
issues! :-) Fritz is a superb computer program, but I feel that's how
it plays, on all levels--like a superb *computer* program.

Which personality gives you the most problems and can you really tell a
difference in styles when you play the different ones ?


Hell yes, just try a game with Fischer and then Petrosian. Or in the
lower levels, try drawing Sunny or Toni. It's pretty easy: just keep
avoiding exchanges and pawn-chain the board. Then try Vlad or Buck.
Different world. Your strategies that work so well against Sunny or
Toni are useless to you here.

My computer is called IVAN , right now it is playing a computer called
VC64 ....

our position

My computer is WHITE and it plays that color on the 7th and 8 th
ranks...

White
ROOKS - A-8 and H-8
PAWNS- A-7,B-7,C-7,D-5 , E-5, G-7,H-7, ...
KING - D-8
QUEEN- E-8
KNIGHT- G-8 and C-6
Bishops E-7 and F-5...

BLACK PIECES

ROOKS A-I and H-I
KING - D-I
QUEEN- E-I
KNIGHTS- C-3 and F-3
BISHOPS- F-I and G-5
PAWNS A-2 , B -2 , C-2 , E-2 , F-2 , G-2,-H- 2

Blacks move ......... He mite send me his move Sunday ......This has
been a good game...


Well, far be it from me to tell someone else how to study or enjoy
chess, but I could never seen the point of watching two computers play
each other, except maybe out of curiosity. (I have to admit I've been
wanting to have a match pitting the Chessmaster engine against Frtiz at
tournament controls to see who would win, but I can't figure out how to
do it that wouldn't be very cumbersome and require me to sit at the
computer the whole time.) Computer vs. computer is so far removed from
human vs. computer or human vs. human that I don't see anything of value
coming out of it, other than, as I said, curiosity. But that's just my
nickel, YMMV, so good luck.



John
--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

  #7   Report Post  
Old October 3rd 05, 06:14 AM
Mike B
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks for all that info ....

I kinda like computer vs computer only because i want mine to win ..I
think yours would beat mine especially on the Fisher or Tal mode for
example...
One of the things i like about it is if i have two pieces that can
take one of his and seeing which one the computer useses gives me
advice...

  #8   Report Post  
Old October 29th 05, 02:46 PM
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2005
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man Behind The Curtain
It seems to me that one thing I never, or rarely, see computers do is
play wild sacrafices, the sort of out-of-nowhere moves that earn "!!"
comments in chess books. They seem to have a more deliberate, clinical
(for want of a better word) style of playing.

Even when I play the Chessmaster personality Tal it never makes the kind
of lightning moves that the real Tal played--at least in my (admittedly
limited) experience playing the CM Tal. I played two rather
conventional games against him, and never saw a wild, Tal-like move
despite the bio on the computer. Of course, I was desperately trying to
contain my opponent by playing closed games both times (and I rather
succeeded until the endgame), but still, based on my limited experience
with the computer Tal and the real Tal there seemed to be a big
stylistic difference. In fact, I found the Waitzkin personality much
more aggressive than Tal.

Would others agree? And what other differences do people here notice
between computer play and human-style play? In what areas can computers
still be improved?



John

--


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
In my experience (and I have a lot of it with CM10) the personalities in CM10 are only for very basic similarities. The Tal personlity is much the same as any personality with a similar rating. I have played many, many, MANY CM10 personalities and they make almost identical moves. I find this one of the only aspects of CM10 that is irksome. I just design my own now.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turing Test for rgcp Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 33 May 7th 05 04:12 AM
Turing Test for rgcp Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 32 May 7th 05 04:12 AM
Minimum Requirements of Life and Maximum Amenities j9ZCpsanR Minimum Requirements of Life and Maximum Amenities rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 September 4th 04 11:54 PM
Modern programs -vs- old computers Chuck in Minot rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 15 November 5th 03 11:02 PM
Computers more enjoyable opponents than humans LeModernCaveman rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 12 October 8th 03 06:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017