Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kranz
yeah, a midget inside. Actually the designer claimed that he "taught" the machine how to make moves etc but the fire revealed the truth. I also remember kasparov's games with deep blue. After he lost he said that computer could not have made such a move...
|
Deep Blue is history. Every decent chessprogram today like Rybka, Hiarcs, Shredder, Fritz, plays much stronger, and with far more positional understanding and strategic - instead of just tactical - competence. To have programmed engines so that they can already adapt to coming situations whose complete move variations are beyond their calculation horizon is probably the greatest acchievement of chess programming. IMO it showed to be more decisive than just scaling up the hardware potency. The two names who bet their money on this kind of programming before anyone else were Mark Uniacke from Britain (Hiarcs), and Netherland's Ed Schroeder (the Rebel programs and their many clones). Schroeder has withdrawn form business, but uniacke is still there, and hiarcs is my preferred engine. I can't differ it from a human player. But probabaly is true for all top engines today.
Until the early-90s I was able to beat everything computer-related that you could buy on the public market, wether it be board-computer or PC-amiga-atari-related, if only I took my time and analysed in mail-chess fashion. These times are long over.
+
As far as players of my level are concerned, computers have become the masters. You can safely buy which you like best by the looks, the playing strength of the engine must not worry you and is no argument in the buying decision anymore - chances are it will slaughter you anyway if you do not use minimal calculation times, handicap levels and artificial brakes. Or you play over hours and days, and anaylse as intensive as in correspondence chess.