Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 04:40:04 07/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
> >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." > Mistake # i wont count the number. It was clearly stated that GM's do analyse between rounds, but the time is limited, further. Since the test situation would not be using the same human to play for fritz in every tournament, fritz would always be unknown entity in the tournament, thus the data to be analysed would be highly limited, as there would be no games from past tournaments available. Further as seemingly strange as it sounds in this day of databases(which is a fairly recent occurence), there are still many IM players and a few GM players that don't have laptops+chessbase+internett, to do what Roman does. Chess is not the most lucrative profession for many to be able to do this. > > > >> 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.