Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 12:54:32 02/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 06:40:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 04, 2003 at 05:51:17, Andreas Guettinger wrote: > > >I think you make a couple of typical mistakes in your chain of reasoning. You >completely leave out the idea of strict anti-comp play and I am talking about >strict = played and tested over a longer period of time. By many, not just one >or two players. Also you misunderstand Elo. Why should Elo of the players go >down when they control comps? My 2400 for comps (2003!) is a "vision" if you >want IF certain conditions would exist. And now let's take a look at chess. > >You say that a human makes 3 weak moves per game. I say you are talking about >human chess with all its delusions and projects. Here however we are talking >about anti-comp. Now think for a moment. You say that comps play not bad but >without great highlights. I think we all know that from the imbreeding campaigns >in SSDF etc. What does that mean? Very simple. The human anti-comp can just >concentrate on the typical anti strategies. There is no hurry. There is no >tension. There is no creativity on the side of the machines. What - honestly - >will you have more??? > >I think that most people underestimate the human brain. And surely that of GM. >Look. A GM has a computer in his brain! How many times must I repeat that? You >become GM because you have that inborn talent of outstanding memory capacities >-first. And that is a must! Sine qua non - for all scientists. And then of >course the necessary talent for chess, which should be discovered with the age >of 5 or 6 years. Now the irritating news from psychology is: that memory has not >too much to do with say artistic genius in general. It could well be that you >land in a boring bureaucratic job but you know all the numbers of the telephone >book of say NY. That is also why chess GM are not by force deep thinkers. Not to >speak of philosophers. Lasker is the exception. > >That aspect is important because I must explain here why up to now not too many >GM really started to perform against comps. And those few who perform, do that >in show events with the usual hoax we know from simuls and other exhibitions. >That is mostly about money nothing else. My theory is that IF a few clever GM >would begin to compete against comps we would realise very fast how weak the >machines are in reality. IF humans develop a special 'counter technique'. But >make no mistake: you must be able to calculate lines up to say five moves. So >all amateur players and patzers below 1700 bye bye. :) > >Know what I mean? Actually we have a complete fog of hot air in CC because NEVER >at least in public that has been shown by GM how serious the weaknesses of comps >really are. In public and for money it's part of the deal that GM simply don't >touch it what is weak. Or don't _talk_ about it. > >So, perhaps now you know when the number 2400 could exist and in which >conditions. > > >>If it is a 2800 >>player, then the computer may have played the weaker moves, but won in the end >>and deserves reating of that level too. > >Fine. But the comps would also lose against 1900 or 2100 player! And that would >NEVER happen to GM! Period. :) > > > >>All in all, computers have a much more well-balanced playing performance, where >>human make top moves and blunders in their games. > > >As I said - you speak of human chess!! > > >>That's why computers are such >>good defenders. > >Also that is only a myth. You copy what others have propagated. It is false. If >you know exactly the limits of a machine then you could kno how weak they are >also in defense. How could that be different if they have no positional >understanding. Either a pawn structure is weak or not. And if it's weak even >perfect calculation can't save it. Let's get real about that truth! > > > >>It can be often seen in human-human games that if one side has a >>clear advantage, the oter player already has given up the game and both sides >>get along with dubious moves... >> >>So, if you give the computers 2400Elo, then the humans deserve not more. > > >You don't know much about statistics. The point is that with "anti" even weaker >Elo players can beat or draw comps! While that could NOT happen to GM! Please >try to rethink your concepts. It is partly psychology and then statistics. > >Rolf Tueschen It can. With tactics, even weaker comps can beat GMs. See Kramnik and Kasparov. Be careful, I studied many hours statistics at university. But you're right, it is statistics. Your anti-comp strategy system IS a myth. I laugh always when I see this argument. If one traines anti-computer, then he manages to get the computer to look really silly in ONE game, but the 50 games he lost until he got this game he never shows. Your anti-computer strategy is unsuitable for tournament play!! But maybe you manage to win a 24 game tournament against a top program with your anti-computer strategy? Show us! :) regards Andreas
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.