In all of these games AI sucks and cheats. I've only played Civ games, Fallen Enchantress, Warlock, and some less known ones. There are many games like that including other Sid Meyer games, Heroes of Might and Maguc series, warlock games, and many more. Civ itself isn't even the best example of a strong and well balanced 4x game, but it is best known. Most of you must know what those games are but it refers to games like Civilization and many of its clones and imitator. I see that all the time in turn based 4x Games. I just want to give an example of a game that computer AI doesn't grasp well and which, when human players play vs AI the AI is always set to be able to cheat. The other option is getting rid of chess as a skill medium and as the new AI and hardware get developed, use their decision making process and knowledge about their hardware limitations to create a new game that is specifically designed to challenge computers and which is accessible to humans. One is not worrying about how strong computers are and keep competing against human players and using computers for analysis only. In my opinion there are only two options. To standardize a computer hardware to match humans there has to exist a measurement and definition of human thought process plus there will be very strong individuals who may distort all the results. I have to agree with what someone said about the idea making no sense. In short I would like to see if the strongest engines could outplay a human in positional play where the human had all the time he wanted to calculate a move against the computer. I don't remember exactly how many moves it was but it was unbelievable. I can't find it now but I read about a female correspondence player in the 19th century who saw mate in something like 90 moves or something. I remember Hans Berliner who is a Correspondence Grandmaster stating one time that Over the Board Grandmasters were several hundred points weaker in play than Correspondence players who had days to make a single move. I would like to see a Correspondence Grandmaster with no computer help go against an engine with no time controls. Well, that's why this will have a very modest CPU, so that its computational power is limited, so the chess engine will have to manage its time slices carefully.Īnd why are you proposing centaur chess basically? That's way more boring than what I had in mind, heh. By pure calculation computers will always be unbeatable by the strongest chess champion so what's the point? The only match I would be interested in would be a world class Correspondence Grandmaster with several days to make a move against a world class program. Or maybe the board can be magnetic and the pieces will just slide in place by themselves. So we can see matches of GMs against "Reference-Houdini 4", "Reference-Critter" etc.Īlso, extra points if the computer is inside a robot which will move its own pieces by itself and have voice playback for calling checks and mates The computing power should be such that in tournament time controls and with engine pondering turned on, today's top engines (Stockfish and Komodo) would be at around 2800 elo strength. I propose the creation of "Reference" hardware, a computer with a specific CPU and memory, for example a dualcore ARM processor and 256mb RAM, on which all chess engines will run now and in the future. I mean these may be interesting but they are not in the spirit of "Man vs Machine" also using an engine for analysis also defeats the purpose. It isn't chess if one side doesn't have all the pieces heh. Giving extra moves or giving up pieces devalues the match IMO. There have been some efforts to level the playing field but I don't agree with them. It's well known that the top engines have become untouchable by any human player, so the interest in human-computer matches has mostly waned.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |