which engine plays most "human" style?
Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman
Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
which engine plays most "human" style?
The reason I originally purchased Hiarcs was because I thought it played the most human style game and my experience has been generally good as far as that goes.
I recently heard a GM say that Rybka & Houdini played a more "human" style than other engines. really?
So that's my question, of the popular engines, which ones play the most like humans do between 1800 and 2200 ELO ?
many thanks...
I recently heard a GM say that Rybka & Houdini played a more "human" style than other engines. really?
So that's my question, of the popular engines, which ones play the most like humans do between 1800 and 2200 ELO ?
many thanks...
- Sargon1972
- Member
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:30 am
- Location: Dussen
I used to be interested in "stand-alone" chess computers 30 years ago but things like iPad are a dream come true for me.Sargon1972 wrote:Hello
Well in mine opinion , there are 2 programmers who have human play style
David Kittinger (Novag )and Ed Schroder (Mephisto)
Kr,Hans
Is this forum primarily for dedicated chess computers? It seems like the majority of posts concern that.
Here's my two cents: I agree with Hans that Kittinger and Schoeder created human-like playing programs, but have to add that I find the Morsch machines more of a competitive challenge (in other words they are more dangerous to me in rapid games than a Super Forte C or a MMIV, the only two that I used to have), although they are a little too mechanical and too much computer-like. I also find Julio Kaplan's programs (first the Turbostar 432 KSO, then the Turboking) quite similar to a human, because they try to achieve a positionally sound pawn structure and then go on to play for a win.bazder wrote:I used to be interested in "stand-alone" chess computers 30 years ago but things like iPad are a dream come true for me.Sargon1972 wrote:Hello
Well in mine opinion , there are 2 programmers who have human play style
David Kittinger (Novag )and Ed Schroder (Mephisto)
Kr,Hans
Is this forum primarily for dedicated chess computers? It seems like the majority of posts concern that.
Your feeling that LCD screens (iPad and tablets) and chess programs are a good combination I find wrong because there is no 3D visual perception of the chessboard, nor is there the tactile sense of moving real pieces that you find in the dedicateds. Not to mention the inevitable eye strain which I try to avoid. And last, but not least, the dedicated machines are, simply put, at human level. To clarify: a recent version of Stockfish on an 8-core machine would surely be able to defeat Magnus Carlsen, and you would be defeated in a match in which this Stockfish plays at 2 sec per move. And that chess is not at human level, while dumbing down the program is neither normal not fair.
Dj.
- Fernando
- Admiral of the Fleet
- Posts: 3059
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
- Location: Santiago de Chile
There are many opinions about that, many of them centering around two or three known brands, which could be true or just part of an already consolidated urban myth.
In my judgement what is the essence of human style is its fallibility, incoherence, mistakes, etc, which is more notorious in mere amateurs like all of us here.
So, if that is truth, the most "human-like" machines are the old ones, full of positional ignorance, tactical errors, and so on. The sheer fact we can win them many times is a proof that they are human-like.
Anything better has the unpleasant tendency to destroy us.
long life to shortcomings regards
Fern
In my judgement what is the essence of human style is its fallibility, incoherence, mistakes, etc, which is more notorious in mere amateurs like all of us here.
So, if that is truth, the most "human-like" machines are the old ones, full of positional ignorance, tactical errors, and so on. The sheer fact we can win them many times is a proof that they are human-like.
Anything better has the unpleasant tendency to destroy us.
long life to shortcomings regards
Fern
Festina Lente