![]() ![]() Playing a dumbed down analysis engine combines the dis-satisfying experience of playing against a calculator with the depressing sense of being up against a much stronger opponent who you know is purposely blundering from time to time in order to give you a chance. What's hard is finding a chess engine I'd actually want to play against, and as raw playing strength increases year by year the situation only seems to get worse. Used as an analysis tool any decent engine can handily find the kinds of tactical blunders I make. If you're not into engine tournaments though, and you can't find your name in the FIDE top ratings list without having to scroll down a bit, I'm one of those who questions whether having this year's 3320 Elo engine instead of last years 3275 Elo engine is about anything other than keeping up with the Jones's. As popularly conceived it seems a good chess engine has come to mean no more and no less than a strong chess engine. But while that fundamental question was answered in the affirmative some time ago and the focus of the AI community at large has moved on to other things, the drive to push artificial playing strength ever higher seems to have continued on unabated. A s I sit typing these words on my simple laptop that by virtue of a free to download software could also beat a super GM, i t seems odd to imagine the idea was all that controversial. ![]() Not so long ago the idea of building a chess playing computer that could seriously compete with a competent human was a leading edge challenge in the world of artificial intelligence, with many perfectly reasonable people doubting it could be done. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |