Why is it so hard for comps to play like people?

This forum is for general discussions and questions, including Collectors Corner and anything to do with Computer chess.

Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Fernando
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3059
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Re: Why is it so hard for comps to play like people?

Post by Fernando »

Reinfeld wrote:Friends,

This question plagues me lately. I've been spending time playing real humans at a local club, and having a great time of it - but I'm struck anew by the failure of programmers to find that sweet spot that makes a program play like a human.

By my own reckoning, my practical live rating hovers in the 1500-1600 zone, with occasional leaps upward on a good day, especially after I've forced myself to study endgames and tactical patterns. In club play, this means I wipe out the dabblers, play even with a couple of solid veterans, and get smashed by the guys who know their tactics well.

Even the better players have blind spots. I recently scored a sneaky victory over a 2000-rated player. I won the exchange in the middlegame, and held on like grim death through an endgame as he gradually reduced my advantage.

How does this relate to dedicateds and programs that can't play like people? Bear with me - I'm getting there.

Real players have habits. They have opening repertoires they will play every time if allowed. They are correspondingly weaker in systems they do not know. They prefer some phases of the game more than others. They make bad plans. They overlook counterpunches. They flinch when they see moves they don't expect.

That's not what comps do. Tune them down, and the most likely scenario is simply blundering a piece early on, typically a Knight blowing itself to bits for a KBP, followed by a dull grind and suddenly smart defensive play. Another annoying tendency of programmed personalities: burn up all the time, then play instant and accurate moves when the clock runs down.

These are the patterns I've seen when playing Chessmaster's "personalities," the best attempt to build human-style play in my experience - though it's not terribly satisfactory. I notice those programmed personalities will reflect tendencies ("favors knights," or "likes Sicilian," for example). Yet even that is not so great.

When it comes to dedicateds, the tuning opportunities are more limited. You can select aggressive, or passive, or simply limit the horizon. Those options don't capture the human effect, however. They don't get to the zones I'm talking about, i.e., bad plans, psychological breakdowns, playing more weakly after a setback, etc.

Has anyone found answers in this area? I know the conventional wisdom gives Kittinger programs credit for human style, and I agree to a point - you get pleasingly unsound sacrifices, for instance. But what have the rest of you done (if you've tried at all) to persuade machines to play like people?

- R.

There is nothing special in human play but mistakes. If you reach perfection, it does not matter if it is a machine or a human being. A mistake is a mistake the same for both. Human are more prone to mistakes, silly tactical ,mistakes and that is the "human" factor 999 of 1000. GM are just better to avoid mistakes and doing that they APPROACH AI.
Festina Lente
User avatar
scandien
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:15 pm
Contact:

Post by scandien »

mclane wrote:The main line increases the evaluation.

A plan is not the same.
A main line can lead to a checkmate or lead to an hopeless position ! The computer choose his move by considering the opponent will play the best move too. This is only a way to select the candidate move !

When a human is selecting is candidates , is there no analysis of the resulting position ?

At the end both the human or the machine will try to reach a dream position with a succession of candidate moves. The way the candidate move and/or the dream position is selected is not really important ( and certainly each human player have his own way to select both the candidate moves and the dream position).

i see really no difference except for the ways/tools to create the plan.

best regards

Nicolas
User avatar
scandien
Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:15 pm
Contact:

Post by scandien »

Here are some grandmaster's maxims about planification in Chess :

"The conception of a plan is the process by which a player exploits the advantages of his position while trying hard to reduce at least the inconveniences. To guarantee the success, a plan always has to base itself on an objective diagnosis of the peculiarities of a position. The conception of a plan is all the more difficult as the position is balanced, and largely facilitated when there is only a single plan susceptible to meet the requirements of the position. "
Harry Golombek

"It is always better to play a false plan in a logical way than to have no plan of the whole."
Viktor Kortchnoï

"A correct plan makes of us heroes; the absence of plan makes of us zéros. "
Alexander Kotov

best Regards
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

OK to add insult to injury :P, the example that I showed here is Chessmaster 2000 in DOSBox (with good plan) beating Atari 68060-32 MHz Chess Player 2150 (with bad plan) after spotting Chess Player 2150 a Knight immediately after the opening 8)

Well Chessmaster 2000 must have thought that it had nothing to lose after that and went for it taking advantage of the more awkward development that Chess Player 2150 had to face after the Knight sacrifice.

Chessmaster 2000??? with a plan!! wow... a program that every one beat on their old computers and loved it!.... everyone was happy.. a fun simple program that was rated around 1600 ELO!

Well try beating it now on a DOSBox after you set it to run at around a Pentium 90 speed and see what happens :)

btw... CM2000 also finished ahead of Mach III Master, Almeria, Corona and Scorpio!

Chessmaster 2000!!! Think about it... with a plan...wow bugs and all.... spotting a Knight... who would have thought that! :wink:

That's like Komodo spotting a Knight to Magnus Carlsen and winning ;)

So in summary even the very old programs had ideas and plans, they just needed to mature into adults by developing their brain power in order for us to see it better :)

Best regards
Nick
BrianM
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:34 am
Location: UK

Post by BrianM »

The human brain is a massively parallel processor that is very good at spotting patterns that occur in chess to home in on a move to choose. Computers cannot do this (as far as I know) but play well by being able to quickly evaluate many moves at a large search depth.

Consider the position below with black to move
[fen]8/1KP5/8/2q5/7p/8/7k/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]

Even a weak player like me can see that all black has to do is advance and promote its pawn to a queen and that is without considering any individual moves. My chess computers cannot see this preferring instead to keep putting white in check. If put on a long enough time setting some will eventually decide to capture whites pawn. e.g Mephisto Miami after 25 minutes.

To my mind this example illustrates the difference between human and computer chess.

Brian
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

BrianM wrote:The human brain is a massively parallel processor that is very good at spotting patterns that occur in chess to home in on a move to choose. Computers cannot do this (as far as I know) but play well by being able to quickly evaluate many moves at a large search depth.

Consider the position below with black to move
[fen]8/1KP5/8/2q5/7p/8/7k/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]

Even a weak player like me can see that all black has to do is advance and promote its pawn to a queen and that is without considering any individual moves. My chess computers cannot see this preferring instead to keep putting white in check. If put on a long enough time setting some will eventually decide to capture whites pawn. e.g Mephisto Miami after 25 minutes.

To my mind this example illustrates the difference between human and computer chess.

Brian
You have to remember that have you learned these kind of positions through prior experiences and therefore your intuition kicks in, whereas a chess program is programmed to search. Those are two different approaches.

Your Miami searches the position about 3 full moves deep or 5 or 6 half ply but still plays a pretty strong game overall right? In the above position Miami knows it is well ahead but with its 5 or 6 half ply search, its evaluation has not improved yet when looking at the obvious move Kg3. For know what it sees is that if White queens then it will only be a pawn ahead and that is a big loss in search value. So at first it tries to find a way to force the White King away from the pawn.

Since Miami knows the 3x repetition rule and also the 50 move rule it will likely first keep moving the Queen around until it has no choice but to either take the White Pawn or move his own Pawn. The moment this decision is reached to avoid a draw since it knows it is still ahead in material, it will accept the possible loss of its Queen and move the Pawn or King and will be a step closer to realizing that it will win regardless of a loss Queen for a Pawn.

Miami has no problems in winning a Queen or a Rook ending against King. So it wins but just takes longer. Miami does not have a way to recall positions like you do however that doesn't stop it from being able to win games against you or does it? :)

The above position is a checkmate in about 22 half moves. Probably a lot of the old computer programs such as Miami would need to be able to search about 12 or 13 deep before they see that the moves h3 or Kg3 are better.

A modern program does it instantly:

a) Because if it has 4, 5, 6 maybe even 7 or 8 endgame tables and therefore it knows these positions to checkmate instantly, faster than even a Chess World Champion could blink.

b) Because on modern hardware searching to mate the above position would only take about a second or two.

Best regards
Nick
Reinfeld
Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:54 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Post by Reinfeld »

A few things (emphasis added):
You have to remember that have you learned these kind of positions through prior experiences and therefore your intuition kicks in, whereas a chess program is programmed to search. Those are two different approaches.
Yes, well, this is the thing, isn't it? The thread is about how to make comps play like humans and rely on intuition (general consideration) rather than tablebases.

Brian relies on the tablebase in his head. It's fuzzier than the modern engines, but no less accurate in a broad sense. Without calculation, Brian *knows* the position is a faster win. Miami does not.

Ideally, a comp programmed to think like a human would know in the same way, and move accordingly based on general considerations. A human-type comp would say, I know this is right, even if I can't see it all the way through, so here I go.
In the above position Miami knows it is well ahead but with its 5 or 6 half ply search, its evaluation has not improved yet when looking at the obvious move Kg3. For know what it sees is that if White queens then it will only be a pawn ahead and that is a big loss in search value. So at first it tries to find a way to force the White King away from the pawn.
The laughable endgame play of dedicated comps - even the good ones - is the arena of this argument. We've all run tests where the effect is excruciating. Again, the question here is how does one train a comp to see the faster win without the tablebase, ie., wisdom.

- R.
"You have, let us say, a promising politician, a rising artist that you wish to destroy. Dagger or bomb are archaic and unreliable - but teach him, inoculate him with chess."
– H.G. Wells
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Reinfeld wrote:
Yes, well, this is the thing, isn't it? The thread is about how to make comps play like humans and rely on intuition (general consideration) rather than tablebases.
Why would a computer need to play like a human since it already surpassed them at endgames. It's intuition through tablebases is instant every single time in every single situation that arises. A human can't compete with that. Instead of picking Miami a program that originates from the late 80's as the example in that game position for a human's superior intuition, why not pick Hiarcs or any other modern chess program to prove this human superiority point? Also how can you expect this ancient program that runs on hardware for which a modern toaster has more brain capacity to be "THE" example for a human's superior chess intuition.
Brian relies on the tablebase in his head. It's fuzzier than the modern engines, but no less accurate in a broad sense. Without calculation, Brian *knows* the position is a faster win. Miami does not.
Of course Miami this 25 year old program knows it. It just needed 25 minutes apparently. Well, try putting this program into a modern Pentium I7 and it probably knows the solution for the posted position as fast you or I would know it :) And that without intuition as it has no tablebases.
The laughable endgame play of dedicated comps - even the good ones - is the arena of this argument. We've all run tests where the effect is excruciating. Again, the question here is how does one train a comp to see the faster win without the tablebase, ie., wisdom.
These programs are 20-30 years old playing on toast making software and the expectations are what? Try out a Revelation Hiarcs or Mysticum or Gavon that are all 'dedicated" to chess and lets see what would happen :)

Playing like a human = Devolution !!!

Computer evolution...regards..
Nick
Reinfeld
Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:54 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Post by Reinfeld »

Nick (good to see you!) asks:
Why would a computer need to play like a human since it already surpassed them at endgames. It's intuition through tablebases is instant every single time in every single situation that arises. A human can't compete with that.
Why should a computer play like a human? Because I don't want a perfect opponent. That's no fun. Indeed, I can't compete with that. I want an imperfect foe, and I want a better vision of imperfection - a sweeter spot - than comps old or new have managed to provide. That is the goal.
These programs are 20-30 years old playing on toast making software and the expectations are what?
Right. But I have about six of these old toasters at hand any day of the week while I watch movies and fool around. They're the machines we all play. We are average. They are average. That's the hobby. It's still interesting to explore and understand their parameters, and consider whether they have any lessons to teach about programming within defined limits, especially when it comes to endgames. We've all played played comp-on-comp matches that featured interminable engdames. It's a cliche.

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself very well. I used Brian's statement as an example of what I'm thinking about human-style play, not as clear-cut proof that humans are better than comps, old or new, which would be silly. I don't think Brian is arguing that broadly, either - but he still has a point.

Of course you're right that Miami gets there eventually, and simply takes longer. But it's still worth asking why it takes longer, because Miami's choice is wrong. Brian's point is that an average player knows enough about chess to know that pushing the h-pawn in his example is the fastest way to win, regardless of calculation.

He self-identifies as a weak player, yet in the example he describes, he's a better player than creaky old Miami, because he knows the faster solution on principle/intuition, not a tablebase. Miami, in spite of being a toaster, is not a stupid player. It's a GK 2000 - it beats most of us most of the time. So why is it so stupid in this position? What would it take to make it (or any other program) smarter, without a tablebase?

More generally, why are all the old comps so crappy at endgames? Was/is there a way to address that deficiency, by programming in a manner that involves principle rather than brute-force searching or tablebases? This was Botvinnik's quest in programming, though he failed. Which major programmer came closest to solving this problem without hashtables and tablebases? How? (I tend to think it's a question of Lang vs. Schroder, but that's me).

Let's separate raw strength from the idea of intuition. Hiarcs and other modern programs rely on tablebases to find the swiftest path to a simple endgame. That's not intuition in the way I think of it, i.e., the sense of playing on general principles rather than perfect, stored calculation. Brian can't calculate the win perfectly, but he knows where it starts, because he makes the heuristic leap. An ideal "human" program ought to know the same thing, and make the right move on principle rather than calculation. How might that tendency be programmed?

Only the Chessmaster series tried to get somewhere on this front. I realize some dedicateds allow you to tune for style (aggressive, passive, etc.). Is there more that can be done? Let me imagine an ideal personality: La Bourdannais.

His opening knowledge is limited and specific. This can be programmed. He is an attacker. This can also be tuned. He has limited positional knowledge. He knows a few endgames. He is a romantic who will seek or force trappy but unsound sacs. What is his temperament? How does he respond to unexpected counters? Does he wilt, or become more resolute? Is it possible to tune a dedicated to play in this manner?

Compare this to a programmed player called Silman. This player knows his openings, but relies on targets and the interplay of minor pieces. He has a vast store of endgames. He will play on principle. Can you tune a dedicated Silman personality? Which machine would come closest?

- R.
"You have, let us say, a promising politician, a rising artist that you wish to destroy. Dagger or bomb are archaic and unreliable - but teach him, inoculate him with chess."
– H.G. Wells
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Reinfeld wrote:Nick (good to see you!) asks: - R.
I was just thinking the same R! It's good to see you posting again :)
Why should a computer play like a human? Because I don't want a perfect opponent. That's no fun. Indeed, I can't compete with that. I want an imperfect foe, and I want a better vision of imperfection - a sweeter spot - than comps old or new have managed to provide. That is the goal.
Now that is something we all want. It's partially the reason why I am currently trying out the old DOS, Amiga's and Atari's running at faster speeds. What Millennium is doing too is in my opinion moving in the right direction. Use an ARM processor around 600 MHz and load these old Morsch, King, Schroeder and Kittinger programs into it and voila!, you will probably then have what people are craving for. Unfortunately so far Millennium has just stuck to the one Lang program and that is becoming tiresome as you cannot play the same Lang's over and over again.
Right. But I have about six of these old toasters at hand any day of the week while I watch movies and fool around. They're the machines we all play. We are average. They are average. That's the hobby. It's still interesting to explore and understand their parameters, and consider whether they have any lessons to teach about programming within defined limits, especially when it comes to endgames. We've all played played comp-on-comp matches that featured interminable engdames. It's a cliche.
It's the same old problem, the old programs in order to improve in this area without endgame assistance need more horsepower. The 5 or 6 ply that they reach in search is just not enough for them to make improved endgame choices. They need to reach at least 10-14 ply in endgames to see decent unassisted endgame improvements. Their problem is mostly a result of search depth limitations.
Perhaps I'm not expressing myself very well. I used Brian's statement as an example of what I'm thinking about human-style play, not as clear-cut proof that humans are better than comps, old or new, which would be silly. I don't think Brian is arguing that broadly, either - but he still has a point.


If these old programs were to play on Millenniums Exclusive Arm Processor you would see more games resembling just what you are requesting, --- games that resemble human style play. These older programs are not as advanced as modern programs and therefore you would see moments or genius and moments of blunders... very human like.
Of course you're right that Miami gets there eventually, and simply takes longer. But it's still worth asking why it takes longer, because Miami's choice is wrong. Brian's point is that an average player knows enough about chess to know that pushing the h-pawn in his example is the fastest way to win, regardless of calculation.
Miami is a tiny program that mostly relies only on search depth. Ok some little knowledge was written into it like how to win with Rook, King against King in an endgame but that's all very limited because of its program size. So really to see improvement it needs more speed.
He self-identifies as a weak player, yet in the example he describes, he's a better player than creaky old Miami, because he knows the faster solution on principle/intuition, not a tablebase. Miami, in spite of being a toaster, is not a stupid player. It's a GK 2000 - it beats most of us most of the time. So why is it so stupid in this position? What would it take to make it (or any other program) smarter, without a tablebase?
It's back to speed. If it were able to convert the 25 minutes into 30 seconds per move, this position wouldn't be discussed right :)
More generally, why are all the old comps so crappy at endgames? Was/is there a way to address that deficiency, by programming in a manner that involves principle rather than brute-force searching or tablebases? This was Botvinnik's quest in programming, though he failed. Which major programmer came closest to solving this problem without hashtables and tablebases? How? (I tend to think it's a question of Lang vs. Schroder, but that's me).


It also goes back to what Ron Nelson wrote about. The manufacturers in order to keep the manufacturing cost down to its barest minimum, the manufacturers settle on the very cheapest workable electronics and chips. So the programs besides having to work in the smallest of ROM's where further stripped down so that they could add marketing bells and whistles such as teach modes and 100 best games of chess in history etc. Even then they were concerned that they may not sell enough computers if the computer beats the Walmart shoppers all the time. They were not interested in obtaining the programmers improved chess strategies as it would cost them more.
Let's separate raw strength from the idea of intuition. Hiarcs and other modern programs rely on tablebases to find the swiftest path to a simple endgame. That's not intuition in the way I think of it, i.e., the sense of playing on general principles rather than perfect, stored calculation. Brian can't calculate the win perfectly, but he knows where it starts, because he makes the heuristic leap. An ideal "human" program ought to know the same thing, and make the right move on principle rather than calculation. How might that tendency be programmed?

Only the Chessmaster series tried to get somewhere on this front. I realize some dedicateds allow you to tune for style (aggressive, passive, etc.). Is there more that can be done? Let me imagine an ideal personality: La Bourdannais.

His opening knowledge is limited and specific. This can be programmed. He is an attacker. This can also be tuned. He has limited positional knowledge. He knows a few endgames. He is a romantic who will seek or force trappy but unsound sacs. What is his temperament? How does he respond to unexpected counters? Does he wilt, or become more resolute? Is it possible to tune a dedicated to play in this manner?

Compare this to a programmed player called Silman. This player knows his openings, but relies on targets and the interplay of minor pieces. He has a vast store of endgames. He will play on principle. Can you tune a dedicated Silman personality? Which machine would come closest?
I am not a programmer so I don't know, but I imagine that modern programs have become much broader in chess knowledge. Hence their increased size to 1-2 MB compared to what was considered huge with 16/32/64 KB on dedicated computers.

The only area where modern engines have not improved in are the endgames as they tend to solely rely on endgame table bases nowadays. Therefore if you were to slow them down to say 5 or 6 ply and then actually play these endings without table bases, they would be worse than even a Miami! :)

Wouldn't it be nice if you had Chessmaster 9K or 10K on a dedicated chess computer? You would be in personality development heaven !! :)

As a side note if you click here:

https://lichess.org/Z6hy0Tfp

Both Amiga 68060 Checkmate Aggressive and Millennium Chess Genius played this game averaging 9 centipawn loss. A centipawn is 1/100th of a pawn in value. Also Checkmate played the whole game with just 2 inaccuracies and MCG with 3 inaccuracies! An inaccuracy = 1/2 pawn (0.5 loss)

Blunder = 300 centipawns
Mistake = 100 centipawns
Inaccuracy = 50 centipawns

As a note I read somewhere that Gary Kapsarov averaged 13 Centipawn loss based on Crafry engine. The above for Checkmate and Millennium is based on Stockfish 8. So I don't know if Kasparov's average would improve or worsen under Stockfish 8. I would expect probably worsen a little since Stockfish 8 is considerably stronger.

But hey what more can you expect from a dedicated chess computer! The 9 average centipawn loss in this game by both programs is 44% better than Kasparov's average of 13!

Grandmasterly!! regards ... :)
Nick
Reinfeld
Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:54 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Post by Reinfeld »

So let's take this human-style idea a bit further. Let's consider how a (capable) human really plays, and whether a program could be tuned to behave in this manner. Are you listening, Mark Uniacke?:

1. CAPABLE HUMAN, at default level, is a 1700+ player with a store of opening book knowledge, but it's limited to the first few moves of a number of openings (a higher-class capable human would have a bigger mental book).

2. CAPABLE HUMAN will not calculate at all times, much as grandmasters tell us they don't calculate constantly. Rather, CAPABLE HUMAN will have a baseline of 2-3-ply when scanning for threats. During sections of the game where calculation is counterproductive, CAPABLE HUMAN will play based on positional principles, seeking targets, advantageous squares, proper minor piece placement, etc.

3. At certain middlegame moments, when attacks are in the air, CAPABLE HUMAN will search more deeply, perhaps 4-5 ply, to see whether sacs and tactics are feasible. But this search function is limited to key moments in the game. It is not constant.

4. Faced with stiff resistance to tactical maneuvers, CAPABLE HUMAN will become psychologically distressed, and choose second- or third-best moves at times, or the best moves at other times.

5. When endgames are in the offing, CAPABLE HUMAN will recognize the long-term prospects and play decisively, recognizing chances rather than concrete calculations.

Give me a program that plays this way.

- R.
"You have, let us say, a promising politician, a rising artist that you wish to destroy. Dagger or bomb are archaic and unreliable - but teach him, inoculate him with chess."
– H.G. Wells
User avatar
mclane
Senior Member
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:04 am
Location: Luenen, germany, US of europe
Contact:

Post by mclane »

What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....
Volodymyr
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:03 pm
Location: Ukraine,Radyvyliv

Post by Volodymyr »

Reinfeld wrote:So let's take this human-style idea a bit further. Let's consider how a (capable) human really plays, and whether a program could be tuned to behave in this manner. Are you listening, Mark Uniacke?:

1. CAPABLE HUMAN, at default level, is a 1700+ player with a store of opening book knowledge, but it's limited to the first few moves of a number of openings (a higher-class capable human would have a bigger mental book).

2. CAPABLE HUMAN will not calculate at all times, much as grandmasters tell us they don't calculate constantly. Rather, CAPABLE HUMAN will have a baseline of 2-3-ply when scanning for threats. During sections of the game where calculation is counterproductive, CAPABLE HUMAN will play based on positional principles, seeking targets, advantageous squares, proper minor piece placement, etc.

3. At certain middlegame moments, when attacks are in the air, CAPABLE HUMAN will search more deeply, perhaps 4-5 ply, to see whether sacs and tactics are feasible. But this search function is limited to key moments in the game. It is not constant.

4. Faced with stiff resistance to tactical maneuvers, CAPABLE HUMAN will become psychologically distressed, and choose second- or third-best moves at times, or the best moves at other times.

5. When endgames are in the offing, CAPABLE HUMAN will recognize the long-term prospects and play decisively, recognizing chances rather than concrete calculations.

Give me a program that plays this way.

- R.
All this is nonsense.Whim and laziness.Learn to play chess, and you'll see that it does not make sense.
Turn off endgame databases and play the endgame position against the engines.Most engines are good at playing the endgame.
Top players make mistakes in the endgame.
I like the Chessmaster, a nice program and a good The King engine. It's very flexible to customize.
I did not like the personalities of this program, and I silently set up an additional 150 for myself.
I like Hiarcs, it also has its own style. Setting the levels is one of the best.
Now the problem is to choose a program for the game.A very large selection.

Image
Reinfeld
Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:54 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Post by Reinfeld »

My goodness - I think Fernando just gave me the answer to the human-style programming question in another thread:

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php? ... ttle+chess

I'd never heard of Chris Whittington. Holy crow, now I have to find this engine:

https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com ... System+Tal

- R.
"You have, let us say, a promising politician, a rising artist that you wish to destroy. Dagger or bomb are archaic and unreliable - but teach him, inoculate him with chess."
– H.G. Wells
donkeylane
Full Member
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:31 pm
Location: Cheshunt, Hertfordshire, UK

Post by donkeylane »

I would have been amazed if the R30 had gone for checks in that position,it didn't it played Kg3 .
Post Reply