Hastings (1), 1919
[Holm, Ziegler, Lehtivaara]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 Na5 9.Bc2 c5 10.d4 Qc7 11.Nbd2 Bg4 12.d5 g5 13.Nf1 h6 14.Ng3 Rd8 15.a4 b4 16.cxb4 cxb4 17.Bd3 Bc8 18.Be3 Ng4 19.Rc1 Qb8 20.Bd2 Qb6 21.Qe2 Nb3 22.Rc6 Qa5 23.Bxa6 Bd7 24.Bb5 Bxc6 25.Bxc6+ Kf8 26.Qc4 Nxd2 27.Nxd2 Qa7 28.Qe2 h5 29.Nf5 Bf6 30.Nc4 Qc5 31.b3 Nh6 32.Nxh6 Rxh6 33.Qe3 Rc8
See how close your chess engine gets to following the great man! :o)
Sorry, I have no idea how to post diagrams.
>Sorry, I have no idea how to post diagrams.
Just post the FEN
I hope you don't mind I edited your post. (I wanted to find out what was wrong with your FEN)
I tabled this problem as it is a very good example I think of what Larry refers to as, 'positional chess'.
Rc1 could be less stronger than the exchange.
I would rather a program play strong moves regardless if they are human positional or not.
Note: human positional means something a human would play.
But
If two moves are equally strong then I want the program to play the human like move mostly.
> I would rather a program play strong moves regardless if they are human positional or not.
I would rather have a program that plays strong moves that are different than moves by other strong programs. That's what makes Komodo such a great engine in my eyes. It's not that I necessarily think that a "positional" style is better - it's that Komodo plays so well while still managing to play so much differently than other engines.
Engine diversity is very good for computer chess.
> I would rather have a program that plays strong moves that are different than moves by other strong programs. That's what makes Komodo such a great engine in my eyes. It's not that I necessarily think that a "positional" style is better - it's that Komodo plays so well while still managing to play so much differently than other engines.
>
> Engine diversity is very good for computer chess.
I would like to see an option to be able to play an engine's second best moves if that move were within eg. 0.10 eval for negative evals to or within 0.75 eval for positive evals. I think that would be
! (Though this would might need to be changed to a percent-basis for some engine's evals. ).
So it seems like a GUI feature, not an engine one (the engine can't do it by itself because in single pv it's only getting the score of one move and doesn't know the score of the second one, MultiPV solves this but it's trivial to do on the GUI side, so why would an engine bother?)
> I think Aquarium has such a "Handicap" feature, that can be used with any UCI engine.
>
> So it seems like a GUI feature, not an engine one (the engine can't do it by itself because in single pv it's only getting the score of one move and doesn't know the score of the second one, MultiPV solves this but it's trivial to do on the GUI side, so why would an engine bother?)
I am one of those people who enjoy engine/piecedriver matches!
Yes Aquarium will allow you to cut MultiPV by value or percent...but as far as I am aware this is only for humans in correspondence mode. Perhaps that has changed. I would not necessarily know as I am using Arena now as my main GUI because it is so powerful and free and in development. However, you certainly cannot do it (yet?) in Arena and I don't think that Aquarium will let you run engine games with the engine's second choice this way.
I got the impression the poster I was responding to initially was talking about piecedriver matches--as they were talking about the style of the games from the piecedriver's perspective, not the human copiloting them!
ex1.: "...program that plays strong moves..."
ex2.: "...play so much differently than other engines."
It's not a feature you'd bug the engine authors about. In other words, it's not a feature you'd ask to be implemented in Komodo, but a feature you'd like to see implemented in Arena or Aquarium, then Komodo under them would use the feature, along with all other engines.
> My initial point was that by chosing from the engine's second, third, fourth choice, you might get different style & play as well. Many people accuse the engines of already playing too "Tactical", so perhaps using not their top PV would yeild a more "Positional" Style-of-Play!!! <img title="eek" class="fsm fsm_eek" alt="
If this is the "Solution" to making engines play "Positional" Chess, then I would like to be paid btw!!!!! Quid pro quo!!! Be a sport! Remember Good Ethics for Life.
> My initial point was that by chosing from the engine's second, third, fourth choice, you might get different style & play as well. Many people accuse the engines of already playing too "Tactical", so perhaps using not their top PV would yeild a more "Positional" Style-of-Play!!! <img title="eek" class="fsm fsm_eek" alt="
Oh well......Solved.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill