Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:53:07 05/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2001 at 07:40:23, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >On May 15, 2001 at 20:03:14, stuart taylor wrote: > >>>Some people might be too snobish to stoop so low as to rely on a computer over >>his own mind. >>Or simply, obstinate and closed-minded as to how good computers can be. > > >Maybe it's not being snobbish, or denying the excellence of a computer program, >but just missing the fun.... > >Over at playchess.de a few computer cheaters were discovered, and that while >they have the opportunity to play advanced or even computer chess in a separate >competition. >It showed a guy playing over 130 games with assistance from Fritz, under four >accounts. He must have been busy operating, and he must have liked it, but >(especially because on this site you DO have the opportunity to use a computer >in two other leagues) people STILL use computer assistance in the *only* league >they shouldn't - really spoils MY fun. > >Discussing the merits of cheating/computer assistance someone told that blunders >never were a part of correspondence chess. Very true, but the suggestion rises >that all correspondence games should end in a draw, because of no tactical >mistakes. > >Not true, as small tactical mistakes - sometimes met with some nice novelties - >*are* a part of correspondence chess. Playing as a human gives you the >possibility to thrive on those weaknesses, and let the opponent stray. > >> >>I, actually believe I could beat many computer users through intelligent use of >>the same programs. But It takes a great amount of time and effort. But on wings. >>(using the computer is like adding wings). > > >With today's computer chess programs, you have to rely on 'horizon effects, >unfavourable 'closed position', 'anti-computer play', almost completely >"removing" the game of chess against a human. It's very well possible to draw or >beat a computer program when you're at a higher level in correspondence chess. > >Your analogy "adding wings" gives the problem (for me) of legalizing "computer >cheating" in correspondence chess a face: people in high jump trying to jump as >high as possible with their body are allowed to use a plane to jump. >Of course the world record will be a jump of over 30,000 feet, no doubt, but >it's no human high jump anymore. > >When I see Uri citing the game, with the names of the 'players' in it, I realize >it has nothing to do with human correspondence chess anymore. > >He likes it that way, and I'm happy to, but I won't enter those competitions >(anymore). Just because (as I already said) I can stay safely at home and play >against all the programs I have. Less than $500 - 700 and you have them all. >It's very rewarding to see after a game that my computer programs weren't able >to better my achievement in their analysis. Maybe I would have come to the same >moves using all my computer programs, but it was *me* taking the initiative, and >me finding the solution to an endfame I surely would screw up over the board. > >*I* think it's too bad seemingly human correspondence chess has disappeared. Human correspondence chess did not disapear. You can play against humans who do not use computers in the low level. I believe that many of my opponents in the previous stage did not use a computer and it is a fact that a big part of my opponents did tactical errors. Vaichel is better than them and he did not do a serious error(the score never changed by more than 1 pawn after his moves but Deep Fritz was clearly enough to beat him) Uri
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.