Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:11:14 07/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 1998 at 09:12:02, Shaun Graham wrote: >On July 14, 1998 at 22:57:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 14, 1998 at 00:28:52, Shaun Graham wrote: >> >>>On July 13, >>>> >>>> >>>>based on experience I don't think this is true. The best chance comes early, >>>>not later, because Fritz has serious holes in it, as does every program I can >>>>think of, and GM's are going to find 'em, and drive trucks through 'em. >>> >>>First of all human players have their own holes to deal with. I'm not going to >>>argue against that if GM's play anti-computer chess that they will win more >>>games against a computer of course they will. If you are playing a competitive >>>game against a computer program and use anti-computer techniques, the computer >>>WILL NOT perform like a GM, because they can't adapt and punish these methods as >>>a human GM would. However if you are training with a computer and play your >>>normal game(regular GM chess) against the computer just as if it were an unknown >>>grandmaster, then it will perform like a Grandmaster. So the question is, (1) >>>is Fritz a GM strength against typical non anti-computer chess? I would say >>>certainly. (2) Is it a GM against non typical (anti computer) chess? I would >>>say definitely not,for the reason that the programs are currently unable to >>>adapt to such situations. >> >> >> >>Please take a deep breath, and reflect on what you are saying for a minute, >>and you'll realize how flawed your logic is. You are saying that when a human >>plays "anti-computer" he can beat the computer but when he doesn't he won't. > >You take a deep breath, and reflect on what you are claiming i said. I never >said that a human not playing ant-computer chess wouldn't win, but indeed, the >likelyhood is considerably reduced depending on the player(which is most >players) >> > >>When playing humans in chess, in my first chess-club, I learned who liked to >>play wildly and was a good calculator, and who liked to play quietly and get >>into a complex endgame. And in each case, I did my very best to give my >>opponent exactly what he didn't want. > >In a swiss system you don't have games and games of experience to decide this >when you don't know the opponent. Thus this analogy is inaplicable. > > Please read my lips: *THIS IS WRONG*. I have personally entered my chess program in some 25 chess tournaments. And in *every one* we were preparing for our next round opponent by looking at what they had played, looking at our book, and adjusting it as needed. *EVERY* *TIME*. You simply don't know what you are talking about. I was at the US open in 1984 when a well-known IM (now GM) approached me and asked if I had a few minutes and access to Cray Blitz. I said "sure" and off we went. He was wanting to check out a book line for his next- round opponent (back in the days of no notebook computers and chess databases). This is *common*. >> >>The point? If I have to play fritz, I'd probably get beat by it. But I >>wouldn't get beat in a wild tactical game, because I would at least exert enough >>control in the game to avoid such. > >In a swiss system you don't often know your opponent, you are going to play what >you think is best based on the experience you have. In this case of testing you >don't have experience of fritz, you are playing the player you got paired with. If you are a good player, and if you are playing one round per day, you will know your next-round opponent *well* before the start of the next round. Usually pairings are posted in the morning, with the games in the evening. Even if you play in a 6 round tornado event over two days, pairings are still available a couple of hours before the next round and that is all that is needed to research openings. *IF* you are *serious* about chess. You might not be, but GMs most definitely are. > > >>>> >>>>And giving them more tournaments to find these openings is suicidal. So >>>>the key questions to me are: (1) is Fritz the best commercial program? >>>>answer seems to be yes, if you are talking about playing computer vs >>>>computer matches. It's proven that on the SSDF it seems. (2) Is fritz or >>>>any other program a GM? not even close yet. Good chess players find and >>>>exploit holes in every program running. I think that many programs might >>>>fit right in the middle of the IM class, although they will not be nearly >>>>as consistent as IM players, because they will beat an IM on tactics, then >>>>get crushed in an elementary ending. A PC GM is a ways away, IMHO, still. >>>> >>>>Getting closer, but not here. *yet*. But given enough time... >>> >>> >>>Regardless of it as actually DONE OR NOT! the point is that if Fritz were placed >>> in a tournament setting even just a single tournament,(masquerading as a human) >>>would it be able to perform at a level equal to that of other GMs in the >>>tournament. I would say most definitely yes. If it performed at a level equal >>>to that of GMs then it can be said it performed at GM strength. The result is, >>>that when you or i play a game against the program using normal play, will it >>>take advantage of our mistakes to the degree of a GM even a low rated GM. >>>Arthur Bisguier is old he is a GM, he is 2300+ USCF, Fritz would destroy him in >>>a match probably even if he did know it was fritz he was playing. So the title >>>is absolutely inconsequential. The ultimate question is ELO rating. If Fritz is >>>2450-2500 ELO that's all that's of any importance. >> >> >>I don't think so. I believe that after 2 rounds, everyone would "know". I >>can pretty well identify a computer after looking at two games using a computer >>to help me. GM's can do it too. And once they find out, it's all over, all you > >Ridiculous, in a european swiss tournament with 50+ games going on, you don't >actually see every game that is played, and a guy sitting with 2 points after >two rounds is not going to be thought to be using a computer. >>get from then on is "anti-computer". Again, pay attention. If someone wins in the first two rounds, his opponent is going to look over those two games (his opponent in round 3). And a GM or IM will figure out it is a computer immediately. You don't have to look at *all* games.. just the games of your opponent, and those are distributed daily at decent tournaments, which most are.
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.