Author: Jason Williamson
Date: 10:44:29 04/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2001 at 01:44:50, Mike S. wrote: >On April 20, 2001 at 00:46:11, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>(...) >>In any case, play against a chess program with takebacks. You will find that >>you can eventually win unless you are a complete idiot. Now, just record the >>winning moves and try again. Eventually (through a very simple method like >>this) you can detect and exploit weaknesses or opening book errors. >> >>If anything, it is his strongest point. > >I'm afraid it will remain unclear forever (not that I'm too interested :o), if >the first version, or draft of that contract included an obligation to hand over >a complete package, including the opening book, or just the engine. IMO it would >*not* make sense for BGN nor Kramnik to have the opening book, for obvious >reasons (because they of course want to have a match, no killer book >preparation), so I think they would have removed that from the contract as soon >as it is explained (if necessary...) during negotiations. I think it's unusual >to make such details of contracts public. > >If I want to take my chance and find parts of a contract I cannot agree with, I >try to negotiate them away - that's what Amir Ban tried to explain to us. > >I do not assume, that BGN or any other organizer would let programs compete >under different contracts. Whoever suspects this, should first bring evidence >and talk later. So, do you think DF or DJ would agree to send their openings to >Kramnik 3 month before the final match, without the right to change anything? >This doesn't sound quite reasonable to me. > >Providing the engine alone isn't such a problem I think, because in this case >Kramnik could not prepare for a small number of opening lines most likely to >reach. I do not think he would profit much more from a new engine version, than >from a current version, during his training. > >Furthermore: I'm only guessing and may be wrong, but I don't think that he will >be able to use the match hardware for preparation. Therefore, he will only get a >rough impression more or less of what his opponent will be; he'll know much less >than he is used to know about the GM's he usually plays against. So lets not >overestimate this preparation issue. > >Regards, >M.Scheidl What you are not getting here is its not the matter of finding opening book problems. Its a matter of finding a strategic weakness and exploiting it. Sort of what Kramnik did to Kasparov only on a more global scale for a computer. Against Kasparov he exploited Kasparov's ego and taunted him with an ending where Kasparov was slightly better and Kasparov couldn't resist pounding his head into the wall to try and win it. Kramnik will find stuff like that...things like, oh, the program seems to like to setup this kind of formation or this slight king weakness and so on. Little things, but in the hands of a player of the strength of Kramnik, more then enough to have repeats of embaressments like the Alterman Wall. JW
This page took 0 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.