Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:25:11 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 1998 at 02:30:32, Shaun Graham wrote: > >>> >>> Not knowing who your opponent is happens all the time i must say that 95% of >>>all the tournament games i have ever played, i knew nothing about my opponent >>>except their name and rating(and sometimes not even that!). It's not false >>>information, it's lack of information. Regardless though this lack of >>>information would make you perform as you would normally against a human >>>opponent and that's what we're trying to find out about. Not knowing your >>>opponent is a computer makes you play typically, and we want to know how a >>>program performs against typical play. The omnly problem that you may have >>>here, is your ethical stance? Do you think finding out how a program plays >>>against typical play is worth a hoax? I'm certainly not advocating that it is, >>>I was just making the point of "Why computers lose" Thgey don't lose against >>>what we call "grandmaster chess" they lose against "anti computer chess". >> >> >>Bad argument. that is because you have played "nobodies". If someone comes >>along that starts beating masters, beats an IM here and there, *every* GM in >>the event will be looking at the games between rounds. Don't think the GM >>players take it as casual as you do... they don't... > >Bad Arguement on your part i'm afraid. First of all, In most of the swiss >events throughout Europe, the players don't know who they are going to play too >soon before the next round, so any analysis of the players game will be terse at >best. mistake number one. Simply do as I suggested, log on to ICC, and politely ask a GM. Or go to chess.net, I'll put you in contact with GM Larry Christiansen. Ask him about whether he knows who is going to be at what tournament, whether he prepares between rounds after figuring out who he plays in the next round. As I said, GM's take it a lot more seriously than you or I do. But I've been around a couple quite a bit, and they prepare carefully. When I was getting ready for the Yermolinsky game, I asked Roman what to play. I was quite surprised when he said "one minute..." aha, he likes to play d4 as white, playing that 70% of the time... and so forth." I asked him "how did you get that so quickly?" He responded "looked it up on my computer.. I keep my database up to date on *all* recently played tournaments so I can prepare when I find out who I play each round." > Further, since you can tell quite little by the examination of one or >even a couple of games, the usage of this info wouldn't play a huge role. Mistake 2. I catch my fair share of cheaters on ICC. Two games is enough. I have a program that analyzes the games, looking for tactical mistakes, and it is *quite good* at finding computer games. I can then play thru the game myself and find other "signatures". *you* might not be able to tell much from two games. *I* can tell a lot. And a GM can probably tell you after playing you one game that you are using a computer. They catch folks regularly on ICC after only one game.... >Further GMs who do evaluate, usually look through their database for games of >the opponent. A new player more than likely wont have to many games in database >until several years of passed, by which Time the player/fritz would have the >norms. right. Last time I talked with IM Mike Valvo at the last ACM event, he had his laptop, with about 1.5 gigs of chessbase games on it. According to him it was current to within two weeks of the ACM event. As I said, you are using your chess experience and assuming facts not in evidence. GM's are *much* more thorough. All you have to do is ask to confirm. Ask Mike (beetle on ICC) or Roman (roman on chess.net) or Larry (christiansen on chess.net) or any other GM you might recognize on one of the servers. You learn so much more when you ask and listen, rather than assume and write... >Recently at the world open a player named Khumana supposedly unrated >beat several masters in a row, and drew an IM, though there was interest in him, >most of his opponents if any of them saw the games he had played previously in >the tournament. Usually there are only 2 score sheets turned in,and they aren't >usually available that quickly. So Hyatt i really wish you would quit >pretending to know more than you actually know. I wish you'd do the same. At a major event, round-by-round bulletins are generally available before each round. So you can get all of yesterday's games before you play your game *today*. I don't know where you play your chess, but it must be in a clubhouse somewhere rather than at rated events. Even the ACM computer chess tournaments have round-by-round bulletins. >I have no doubt that you are >comparatively good in your specific field, so please stop with the fluff, it >just makes it seem if you think your skill is inadequate. I'm not here to fight >as you are apparently. Discuss the data, and experimental technique, that's all >that anyone cares about. > >O You should take your own advice. You make comments that are mostly wrong, based on assumptions that are mostly wrong, about things you have no idea about. And then you comment on "my scientific investigative ability." Something is certainly wrong...
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.