Author: Peter Kasinski
Date: 08:47:05 07/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1998 at 11:21:10, Shaun Graham wrote: > >> >>Junior5.0 is not in the SSDF list or in the selective search >>so we cannot know if Fritz5 is the strongest. >>Junior4.9 had better results than fritz against grandmasters >>it drew against 3 grandmasters. > >Point? Only use statistically relevant info, no matter though, if fritz is >strongest or not? This convo is about GM strength, are you saying Junior is a >grandmaster? If so cool >> >>> Further people who understand >>>chess much better than you, me and most people GM Yermolinsky, and i also >>>believe Anand believe Fritz to be the strongest commercially available >program. >>> >>>Of course neither you and i can prove wether fritz is a GM strength or not, >>>without actually testing fritz in actual tournament play(I believe that this >>>would also have to be done just as i said in a secret way with an individual >>>recieving moves from fritz, to avoid bias, so that players would play the way >>>they do normally). It is none the less, my belief that indeed Fritz(current >>>version) could perform well enough, to eventually recieve 3 GM norms in 5 >>>Years(the time in which one must obtain all 3 norms)playing on the europeon >>>swiss circuit of chess. >> >>after some games players can guess who is the individual receiving moves from >>fritz. > >No they wouldn't guess, because to avoid bias the players wouldn't know that >fritz was participating at all, and would have no reason to suspect that it was. > Further at swiss tourneys most players in the tourney don't actually analyse >the games in depth of other players if they see them at all. So they would only >think "geeesh that guy is good" > >>I have another idea that in every game the players will not know against who >>they are playing. >>everyone will give his(her,its) move to a computer program and the computer >>program will give it to the opponent. > >Still not very good because this adds a component that does not exist in normal >chess. Thus the results of the data analysed would have problems >> It would appear to me that not knowing who your opponent is doesn't feature in chess either. Or lying to the participants (biased or not) about it. If human players have no reason to suspect a silicon opponent, they are being given false information and to base their decisions on. That's worse than not knowing who you are up against. I'd rather wait until PC programs can defeat (or mock) the anti-computer strategies. Can they?
This page took 0.01 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.