BrainKing - Klobe na mloveni (Chess variants (10x8))

Chess variants (10x8)

Sam has closed his piano and gone to bed ... now we can talk about the real stuff of life ... love, liberty and games such as
Janus, Capablanca Random, Embassy Chess & the odd mention of other 10x8 variants is welcome too

For posting:
- invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu or for particular games: Janus; Capablanca Random; or Embassy)
- information about upcoming tournaments
- disussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position
... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted while that particular game is in progress)
- links to interesting related sites (non-promotional)

Véčet klobu na mloveni

Mód: Každé može datlovat

Okázat névic stary zpráve nédřiv

8. lestopado 2005, 17:29:03

Chicago Bulls

okázat plke toďteho oževatela | odkazové plk

O čem je toďten plk: Re: From relatively unknown to known

Přetvořeny oževatelem Chicago Bulls (8. lestopado 2005, 17:29:56)

Walter Montego: Reinhard was correct!
(Well almost, if he didn't assume that 400 were the years that we developed our Chess opening knowledge. He should say ~100 instead). But correct on what? On his statement that we have to wait around 960·400 years for having the same opening knowledge for all FRC position as we now have for Chess. Because this opening knowledge didn't come from computers but from humans mainly. Of course now that computers play at the same level or above from the very best humans we can learn from their games too. But "can" and "should" is different from "it will" and i mean we CAN learn from their games, so the years that the opening knowledge for all 960 FRC positions will not be 100·960, but less lower, but is any chance that this WILL happen? NO! There are not so much interested people on this to made it possible. So we have to wait for the natural evolution of this which will take the time Reinhard said.
But all these are not important.......

What is important is your wrong statement regarding FRC only:
When the gigs become teras and when understanding how to program these types of games becomes better and more efficiently improved, these games will be just as well mastered as regular Chess is nowadays.

Since now computers have the same strength or more of the top humans at handling Chess positions and since there are no opening books for FRC, the strength of computers at FRC IS the same or above (actually is above because FRC requires more tactics) from the top humans! So computers have already mastered FRC!

About Gothic Chess or CRC i think if there is an inceasing interest in these games, then in 2-3 years AND because these games are highly tactical, computers will be better than humans.......
(Consider this simple example: Gothic Vortex is based on Crafty(An open source engine that is looking with the hubble telescope the very top engines) mainly. And is already a very tough opponent. Consider what will happen if Gothic Chess engines will be based to Fruit or Shredder that are top Chess engines.)