Originally posted by SkorjI couldn't agree more about the first part. You described it perfectly. I think most of the time strong engines emulate weaker play by just randomly picking lines that are further down its hierarchy of moves. A lot of the times when I have beat chessmaster 10 at a pretty high level, it was because it left a piece hanging for an absurd trap that I didn't fall for, or in a very crucial moment, it picked a bad move when anybody else with any kind of brain would have picked the only good move.
I don't play against engines much any more. When I did I found there was something to be said for playing weaker engines at full strength than playing a strong engine trying to emulate weak play. In the latter case I often felt as though I was playing against a team consisting of a somewhat weaker player, a GM who could take over at any time, and a 6 year old ...[text shortened]... playing strenghts rather than taking one stong engine and dumbing it down to various degrees.
As for the second part of your post, I just read that programming personalities into chess engines is a hobby for some people. So there are people out there trying to make good, solid computer adversaries. Its a problem thats being worked out.
Originally posted by SkorjI agree with this and have posted something similar in the past. If you take this into consideration and accept it, there is still a lot to be gained from playing a dumbed down engine. It can be set to play in different styles, something the mighty fritz doesn't really do. CM is a great program for this. It isn't designed to be a brilliant analysis engine, it's designed to be used by average players who wish to improve step by step, which IMO makes it a great program. I don't play it very much any more, but a couple of years ago i really did use it a lot (especially when i had no internet at home)....
I don't play against engines much any more. When I did I found there was something to be said for playing weaker engines at full strength than playing a strong engine trying to emulate weak play. In the latter case I often felt as though I was playing against a team consisting of a somewhat weaker player, a GM who could take over at any time, and a 6 year old ...[text shortened]... playing strenghts rather than taking one stong engine and dumbing it down to various degrees.
Originally posted by MarinkatombI like the different personalities too, especially when I use their personalities against them. But for an inferior engine it sure kills me everytime I play it at full strength. I don't even understand how it does it... within 8 moves out of book it usually has a notably superior position... I don't get how moves can be so powerful and the slightest advantage can be exploited.
Though Chessmaster is obviously an inferior engine when it comes to analysis, it's the only one i really enjoy playing against. The different profiles are fun, i like the way it can play in different styles. 🙂
Originally posted by Dies IraeCan you download these? Gotta link? I played with it for a while but found my created opponents turned into Monsters! It's hard not to set everything at max! 😉
..So there are people out there trying to make good, solid computer adversaries. Its a problem thats being worked out.
Originally posted by Dies IraeI've had a couple of reasonable games against it on full strength. I got to 50 moves once with equality, though positionally it was better. I find it's style to be particularly engine like. Fritz is capable of playing something that resembles positional/strategic chess but chessmaster is just a tactical number cruncher.
I like the different personalities too, especially when I use their personalities against them. But for an inferior engine it sure kills me everytime I play it at full strength. I don't even understand how it does it... within 8 moves out of book it usually has a notably superior position... I don't get how moves can be so powerful and the slightest advantage can be exploited.
Originally posted by MarinkatombI forgot where I read it, I think on wikipedia somewhere and I think there was a link. I poked around but couldn't find it, maybe you'll have some luck if you look through the linked articles on chess computers.
Can you download these? Gotta link? I played with it for a while but found my created opponents turned into Monsters! It's hard not to set everything at max! 😉
But Chessmaster, yeah, I've done alright against it full strength but it always has an advantage on me like a better pawn structure or a passed pawn or just something like that, and then it'll just keep the game tight and balanced and keep trading down so it'll come down to him having that strength and me having nothing.
Originally posted by Dies IraeYou have one advantage when playing an engine, it finds it almost impossible to spot draws until it's too late. A case in point...Game 2434914
I forgot where I read it, I think on wikipedia somewhere and I think there was a link. I poked around but couldn't find it, maybe you'll have some luck if you look through the linked articles on chess computers.
But Chessmaster, yeah, I've done alright against it full strength but it always has an advantage on me like a better pawn structure or a pas ...[text shortened]... and keep trading down so it'll come down to him having that strength and me having nothing.
Originally posted by MarinkatombMy favourite is GNUChess as you can see from this thread Thread 49159 Its available on Linux as well and is not as strong as the main engines. Its much better than setting Fritz at 2000.
You have one advantage when playing an engine, it finds it almost impossible to spot draws until it's too late. A case in point...Game 2434914
Originally posted by Dies IraeThere are those who are developing engines as a hobby. Hopefully a fair number of them are working towards the sort of goals I was speaking of, which would involve not just giving it human-like qualities but targeting their project to play at a certain level rather than just making it as strong as they can. A series of such engines that played at levels from novice to GM would be preferable to playing a strong engine that had been handicapped in various ways.
I just read that programming personalities into chess engines is a hobby for some people. So there are people out there trying to make good, solid computer adversaries. Its a problem thats being worked out.
A good project might be to compile a bunch of free downloadable engines into a sort of virtual chess club. (If I decide to give this a shot I'll let you all know how I make out). What I'd really like to see this type of approach being taken, for example, when CM XI is released. While a lot of developers seem to be competing for the glory of having the strongest engine (nothing wrong with this) wouldn't it be just as interesting to see who can come up with an engine that is most apt to make the same misevaluations, weak moves and outright bluders that an average human player would and for the same reasons?
1 edit
The problem with chess programmers is that they make commercial engines play like world champions in tactical positions but like Joe Average in positional ones.
The best thing for a human is to find a silicon opponent which plays at its best in all situations but allows you a chance to win.
Originally posted by krimSeeing is believing Thread 59363. Not even GK/Fischer/Tal can boast like that. Silicon GMs are invincible in tactics but are weak positionally.
Heard this from where?