Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 18:35:15 02/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2003 at 21:21:00, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >On February 03, 2003 at 20:42:01, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On February 03, 2003 at 19:52:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>Yes. Of course. Alas, the mean computer experts have invented the 6 games >>>"matches" and that is too short to exploit and harvest. Let them play 48 games >>>with the same machine of course. Promissed? >>> >>>:) >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >>If Garry is the best player of the two he should be able to win without a 48 >>game disection of the program. >> >>What would the conclusion be if he needed 48 games to win, that GK can only win >>if he can completely pridict his opponents moves? >> >>It's kind of like playing poker when you can see the other guys hand. >>Cheating is another word for it. >> >>Of course _if_ these had been the rules I think the programmers would have >>devoted a little more time to the development of learning heuristic, so it may >>not be a very big issue after all. >>I mean it's not that difficult to have the program change a few of the >>parameters from game to game, ie. simply loading different "personalities" by >>random. >> >>-S. > >i Cannot resist commenting to this illogic stuff. Playing 48 games would only >wear out a human super GM. I don't see the illogical stuff, if he gets enough rest between games why would he tire? He has played chess all his life, he will continue to play chess for the next year, just in other tournaments. Now the match would be come boring and less intense with that many games, people would start to lose interest, but that is a different concern. >Heck Kas may have a problem with just six games. Look how long he has to go into >deep thinking with his clock running. The silicon thing never tires. How long a >period do you expect a 48 game match to played over ? 1 year, 6 months, 3 months >? I am afraid that this is just one human weakness, it is hard to keep the concentration for that many hours, but it is part of the game. Relatively speaking I still think longer games is an advantage for humans, computers are just incredible at blitz. >Bye the way DJ would perform better in a standard tournament if DJ was just >another entrant. >What are the other GM's to do. Spend value preparation against DJ in such >an event ? Of course not, they will spend their valuable time preparing for >overall peers in the tourney. Exactly, I said the same thing. >It has already been done, bye the way (don,t >remember which program(s) or what tournaments, at what time. My memory only >remembers that it has happened. > >Also give DJ credit for what it has done thus far. How many of you guys expected >this result. DJ has played at a very high GM level. I thought I was doing that? :) DJ actually only lost one game, and that was probably already lost of out book. >And do not offer a response that he is playing under some devious pre-arranged >agreement to make the match exciting. Heck his standing with his peers and the >world is involved here after loosing the IBM match. I wouldn't dream of it, Garry had his say in the arrangement, otherwise he could have refused to play. No excuses here. :) -S. >That is my 2 cents worth. > >Thanks >Wayne
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.