Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric
From: eric@aplvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.chess
Subject: Re: Computer Chess
Message-ID: <241@aplvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Aug-83 11:57:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: aplvax.241
Posted: Tue Aug 16 11:57:55 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Aug-83 05:35:21 EDT
References: aplvax.239
Lines: 21


	It sounds like Belle does consistently beat Ken Thompson,
thanks to all of you who sent me mail about this. What prompted
this continuation was one letter I got.

	Ken Thompson can't beat Belle.  So what?  He asks.
	How fast can Seymour Cray add?

This is a lousy argument. Is the author (name withheld to protect
the innocent) saying that chess program algorithms are as well
developed as addition algorithms? What I was trying to get across
in the original posting is that chess algorithms are far from
perfect, they miss valid strategies, and they can sometimes fall
into stupid traps. Now, with the annual computer chess tournament
coming up, I can understand authors not wanting to give away the
chinks in their programs, but can they use them to consistently
beat them. We have heard about Thompson and Belle, does anyone
know about NUCHESS, CRAY BLITZ, CHAOS and the others?

					eric
					...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric