spacious_mind wrote:Let's just say that Lang's can be very frustrating as they get into positions where they begin moving aimlessly. Their saving grace is that a lot of their opponents at that time had similar problems.
But Nick, I'm talking about chess play here at around the level of an amateur expert - say the very high 1900s to around 2100 per the FIDE rating scale. You are talking, however, as if I am using a FIDE Master paradigm to describe a Lang program. I'm not - a FIDE master is a lot stronger than any Lang program in any dedicated machine.
Strong amateur players around the 2000 mark are obviously very good, however the fundamental reason they are not FIDE Masters is because they make more weak and unjustified moves more of the time than a true master does. They also make more blunders more of the time. In terms of their "best" chess, many players around the 2000 mark will play like an IM on a really good day - that is where they play their "best" game and without any of the weaker moves and blunders. The occasionally stupid and dumb moves (whether it be a tactical blunder, a dubious long-term strategic decision or weak positional move) is exactly why these players are rated at 2000 instead of 200 points higher. So I don't really think it is fair to say a Lang machine is completely unlike them even if the Lang machines make stupid moves themselves as well - they are merely in commensurate company with similarly-string humans in terms of their chess playing ability.
As I did actually go onto say in my original post that you quoted, sometimes the games of the strong Langs can get indeed quite dowdy and drawish which is effectively the same (or I meant it to mean the same) as the criticisms that you have levelled at them. However it takes two to tango. I myself saw this behaviour too in the test games I have been playing using my Genius phone at 3 seconds per move (about the same computational speed as the new Millennium at tournament level) - there was some pointless queen meandering in the test game for example that reminded me of machines from beginning of the 1980s. I even managed myself to draw against the Lang Genius program running at around 2500 ELO just out of the opening precisely because this dubious stubbornness that can result in weak moves. I actually think a lot of the reason for the strange moves we do see in the Lang programs is because of the positional evaluations they use coupled with an overly cautious contempt factor - the programs will occasionally rather make a silly looking move that does not improve it's position than perhaps make another move that might possibly be valued slightly lower but down the track proves to be better and would result in a much more coherent looking game.
That said, all programs that have ever made their way into a dedicated machine have had shortcomings in one or more respects. I'm not yet aware of any dedicated machine that you could put in front of me and I wouldn't be able to point out dubious, annoying and even unfathomable behaviour at least some of the time.
Nevertheless, you are of course entitled to your opinion but my point stands as I made it - all things considered these Lang programs in my experience emulate better than most -
more often than not - the "feeling" of playing a human being who is around the high 1900s to around the 2100 level. Meaning it emulates better than other programs the inherent strengths and weaknesses of player at that standard. The strong Kittinger, Morsch and Shroeder programs are of course a lot of fun and a great challenge to play against but quite honestly I don't really know of any humans at a corresponding ELO level who play even remotely the way they do. Their play is more akin to a much stronger player than their actual rating playing a (very) rapid game - at least in terms of everything bar outright tactical ability.[/i][/u][/i]
If I were preparing to play in an under 2000 tournament, of all the machines I could choose to train against, it would be a 32 bit Lang machine with hash tables. That would give me the very best match practice and would hone my strengths in order to successfully compete against the human players I would come up against.
Chess is like painting the Mona Lisa whilst walking through a minefield.
