Author: Don Dailey
Date: 03:09:34 07/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 1998 at 22:53:08, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>I think you should re-read the goals of anti-GM, the why's, its birth. > >>>In the past at AEGON I have seen Rebel losing against grandmasters >>>without any chance. After such a game it is very frustrating to realize >>>your program didn't have just ONE little chance on counter play. > >>>anti-GM is about to deal with this problem. I don't know how good it is >>>as 8 games is not much but in most of the 8 games it was Rebel who >>>took the initiative which pleased me very much as this exactly is one >>>of the goals of anti-GM. > >>>- Ed - > > >>Hi Ed, > >>I really hate to be so skeptical but I am. I have to admit I believe >>this is really more a marketing scheme than anything else, and I hope >>you take no offense, none is intended. The language you use when >>describing it could be lifted directly onto a glossy advertising >>brochure! Making the announcement probably guaranteed you many sales. > >Hi Don, > >The announcement of anti-GM was done long time BEFORE the match. If >anti-GM is only a hype (as you wonder) to make some extra money then >announcing it long time before the match is the most stupid thing a company >can do. What if Rebel would have lost the match with 7-1 or so? Then anti-GM >would have been shot into 1,000 pieces no? > >Like you I like to talk about my program. > >>Don't think I'm accusing you of making this up, I believe you are >>doing something and calling it anti-GM. I even believe things can be >>done in principle. It's just that I am very skeptical this is having >>much, if any effect on the results. > >>I was not surprised by your results against Anand and congratulate >>you. It was better than I expected but within what I judged to be >>reasonable expectations. Your program is one of the very best and >>I don't know why everyone else was so surprised unless they don't >>realize how good your program is. I expected you to do well in >>the fast games and thought a win in the slow games would be an >>excellent results, but the draw is a good results too. > >>The problem with anti-GM is that all you did was announce it and >>suddenly every one was congratulating you for such a great >>innovation. It's not even a new idea by any means. Anyone could >>have made this announcement without writing a single line of code. >>I have to remain skeptical until a whole lot more evidence comes >>in. Getting a good results against Anand with an already GREAT >>program does not do it for me. > >>Is this going to be a switch we can turn on and off in your next >>program? Can we do our own tests and analyze the games and moves >>and do direct comparisons so that we can judge for ourselves? >>Will this mode play weaker against other computers or will it >>be just as strong? Until I can satisfy my curiosity I for >>one will remain a skeptic. If indeed you are doing wonderful >>things with opponent modeling then I am definitely interested. > >In Rebel10 you will have the possibility to turn anti-GM on or off. Next >the option has 3 other levels, ACTIVE, STRONG and SMART. The >setting during the match was SMART in all 8 games and this will be >the default setting in Rebel10. > >- Ed - > > >>- Don Ed, Thanks for the info on the new anti-GM option. I look forward to checking it out in Rebel10. - Don
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.