Good chess program?
- 主题发起人 DaLagga
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Myden Blat
Squire
I heard that one of the best chess players in the world got beaten by a computer in about 14 turns, and he had to give up. Sounds quite hardcore. Too bad i didn't find out what program it was 
I do recall hearing that. However, wasn't Deep Blue invented something like 10 years ago? I thought surely there would be many Deep Blue clones by now, that are at least as good if not better. The reason I'm asking is because most of the chess programs I've found seem to make extremely stupid moves from time to time. Usually the computer owns me pretty bad on the hardest settings, but just the other day I was playing one on master and it for some reason it sacrificed a queen for a pawn...with no tactical gain whatsoever on the board and with plenty of other viable (much better by any one's standard) moves available. My chess is pretty much crap so I really shouldn't win at all, especially just because the computer contains some random stupidity script.
There should be some pretty good ones
available, but nothing on that level, for
a PC. The only reason DB was so powerful,
wasn't a bunch of great cleverness in the
coding, but rather just the tremendous
amount of look-ahead that it was doing.
Probably yours just accidentally (i.e. a software
glitch) fired some sort of 'book' move, that wasn't
applicable.
available, but nothing on that level, for
a PC. The only reason DB was so powerful,
wasn't a bunch of great cleverness in the
coding, but rather just the tremendous
amount of look-ahead that it was doing.
Probably yours just accidentally (i.e. a software
glitch) fired some sort of 'book' move, that wasn't
applicable.
morgoth2005
Grandmaster Knight
**** looking ahead. Kasparov beat Deep Blue.
Encore
Sergeant
Deep Blue was apparently a big hoax. According to Kasparov he set up a trap in which you had to think creatively to get out, i don't know how you'd do that in a game based on logic but hey, and the first time it didn't get it but when he set up the trap again Deep Blue got it. I don't really understand it.
Encore 说:
Not a hoax at all. There was simply an error.
Yoshiboy 说:
No. Nothing that sophisticated.
Sorry. Almost entirely 'book' moves,
and look ahead. The primary engine
was a simple alpha-beta minmax,
going just slightly further than
what the standard grandmaster
can see. Don't even think that
they utilized quiescence.
Encore 说:
Not a hoax at all. There was simply an error.
Yoshiboy 说:
No. Nothing that sophisticated. Sorry. Almost entirely 'book' moves, and look ahead. The primary engine was a simple alpha-beta minmax, going just slightly further than what the standard grandmaster can see. Don't even think that they utilized quiescence.
Stonewall382
Knight at Arms
[flyby sound]noooOOOOOOoooob![/flyby sound]
