Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Clarification if Cheating could be excluded from Computerchess

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 19:02:06 05/09/00

Go up one level in this thread


On May 09, 2000 at 11:58:35, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>On May 08, 2000 at 13:31:02, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On May 08, 2000 at 11:10:51, blass uri wrote:
>>
>>>On May 08, 2000 at 10:37:54, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>><snipped>
>>>>Absolutely not.  First, it would give Kasparov a chance to see how deep the
>>>>thing searches, how it extends.  How it evaluates some positional
>>>>considerations.  It would be a decided advantage for Kasparov had he had this
>>>>kind of information.  Injecting it into the middle of the match would have
>>>>definitely tainted the results.
>>>
>>>If the machine is strong enough then knowing how deep the thing search and how
>>>it extends and how it evaluates positional considerations could not save
>>>kasparov from losing.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>
>>No.. but if they are close in strength, it could be a deciding point for the
>>match.
>
>Looking at those printouts wouldn't have helped him a damned bit.
>
>This thread is a giant troll, isn't it?
>
>bruce


I totally disagree.  I had an IM get a copy of Crafty, played it a bunch of
games offline, and 'learned' some things about how it evaluated (and
mis-evaluated) things.  And then he returned to ICC and did much better against
Crafty (and its clones) than he should have.  He later told me what he had
found, and how he had found it, and commented that "had the program not been
available so that I could play it, watch its analysis, see how it evaluated
various things, I could not have learned how to exploit certain weaknesses."

I believe Kasparov could do that _far_ quicker than the IM did.  He pointed
this out after match one.  I would love to know how a program evaluates passed
pawns vs king safety, space vs center control, pawn structure vs piece mobility,
and so forth.  I think it could be a decisive advantage if the player is already
strong enough to be a 'problem' for the computer.  Kasparov would be a 'problem'
for _anybody_.



This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.