Abegweit,
First, I want to apologize if my tine was inapprorpriate.
I agree with your last post. I probably consider the opening books cheating also. But it clearly helps them play better!
For Civ, I guess there is also a question of whether they should use 'opening books'? (Start on grasslands, build worker, etc. Maybe they already use them?)
I agree with you point about Emperor. I guess the goal should be at the AI is built to compete on Noble, and then given bonuses -- I think if you build the AI to KNOW it has the advantages of emperor, it is a different process, and that is also kind of cheating. As you said, it would win easily then.
I also totally agree that all of the chess improvements are really kind of cheating or improved decision trees, that is all computers really do well.
I've always found that advertising about the strength of the chess PC's was kind of funny. I remember whent he Chessmaster's bragged about going from 2400 -2500 -2600 and so on -- it is kind of silly, isn't it? How many people can tell the difference? (However, I do admit it may matter in trying to go through GM games and helping people figure out the best moves or understanding them).
Best wishes,
Breunor
First, I want to apologize if my tine was inapprorpriate.
I agree with your last post. I probably consider the opening books cheating also. But it clearly helps them play better!
For Civ, I guess there is also a question of whether they should use 'opening books'? (Start on grasslands, build worker, etc. Maybe they already use them?)
I agree with you point about Emperor. I guess the goal should be at the AI is built to compete on Noble, and then given bonuses -- I think if you build the AI to KNOW it has the advantages of emperor, it is a different process, and that is also kind of cheating. As you said, it would win easily then.
I also totally agree that all of the chess improvements are really kind of cheating or improved decision trees, that is all computers really do well.
I've always found that advertising about the strength of the chess PC's was kind of funny. I remember whent he Chessmaster's bragged about going from 2400 -2500 -2600 and so on -- it is kind of silly, isn't it? How many people can tell the difference? (However, I do admit it may matter in trying to go through GM games and helping people figure out the best moves or understanding them).
Best wishes,
Breunor