which engine plays most "human" style?

bazder · Post by **bazder** » Fri Dec 26, 2014 6:27 pm

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...

Sargon1972 · Post by **Sargon1972** » Fri Dec 26, 2014 7:04 pm

Hello

Well in mine opinion , there are 2 programmers who have human play style
David Kittinger (Novag )and Ed Schroder (Mephisto)

Kr,Hans

bazder · Post by **bazder** » Fri Dec 26, 2014 9:51 pm

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

I used to be interested in "stand-alone" chess computers 30 years ago but things like iPad are a dream come true for me.

Is this forum primarily for dedicated chess computers? It seems like the majority of posts concern that.

scandien · Post by **scandien** » Sat Dec 27, 2014 12:43 pm

Hello,

i think that in top PC engines you can find two engines which are really playing like humans.

The Chess Tiger ( F Theron) and Rebel ( Ed Schroder )

Best regards

Nicolas

pr1uk · Post by **pr1uk** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:39 am

I find that Ed Schroder (Mephisto) to me does play a human and interesting game

jarek · Post by **jarek** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 9:44 am

what do you think of Gandalf?
see an interesting blog post here

kind regards
Jarek

Mentat · Post by **Mentat** » Thu Jan 01, 2015 4:57 pm

bazder wrote:
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
I used to be interested in "stand-alone" chess computers 30 years ago but things like iPad are a dream come true for me.

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.

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.

Post by **Fernando** » Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:43 pm

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