Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:27:55 02/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2003 at 21:48:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 16, 2003 at 13:58:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 16, 2003 at 12:14:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 16, 2003 at 06:46:33, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 15, 2003 at 22:17:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 15, 2003 at 14:52:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 15, 2003 at 14:34:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Answer me this, What Difference Does it make if you play more >>>>>>>>positional chess, if you cannot defeated me?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If that were the case, I would agree. But by the same token, do you want >>>>>>>your program to play 30 brilliant moves and one lemon move, over and over? >>>>>>>That one lemon will drag your performance _way_ down at the top of the rating >>>>>>>scale. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Bob, may I point out with humility that this is exactly my weak-chain argument? >>>>>>Finally we are on the point. Did you ever reflect what would happen if >>>>>> >>>>>> - in a really recompensating money atmosphere and >>>>>> >>>>>> - after top players adopted specific comp related chess? >>>>>> >>>>>>And that on the base of a known permanent weakness? >>>>>> >>>>>>That is the point. And not the typical hype based on show events /commercials. >>>>>> >>>>>>What is you impression with the GM play on ICC? But note, Roman D. had to face >>>>>>an always changed version [on the base of his own hints]. Guess what will happen >>>>>>if several top GM work hard on a counter strategy against comps, in other words >>>>>>if GM adopt 'Eduard'... >>>>>> >>>>>>Only then, and that is my argument since long, the actual commercial progs begin >>>>>>to SUCK. But on a permanent base! >>>>>> >>>>>>My questions to Amir went a bit in the same direction. Let's see how far the >>>>>>experts can open their mind. >>>>>> >>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The question is "too hard" for someone that is _not doing this_. IE who can >>>>>say what a top GM player would do when folks start waving a million bucks >>>>>around? IE would he try to stomp the program and end the matches for years? >>>>>Would he intentionally "play down" to guarantee another million dollar match >>>>>next year? >>>>> >>>>>I'm not capable or qualified to answer that... >>>>> >>>>>And anything I might say would be absolute 100% speculation. >>>> >>>> >>>>But - you are qualified enough, perhaps the best qualified in the field, to >>>>judge the actual strength of the progs in relation to GM and their chess. Say, >>>>the GM would run wild and were determined to kill, would they succeed or not, >>>>that is the question, NOT would they really want that or would they do it. >>>> >>>>I know the answer from all what you said. But you want to hide it? For what >>>>sensible goal? Do you want to avoid the deception of computerchess lovers >>>>worldwide? Or don't you want to harm the future show events? >>>> >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>> >>>The answer is "none of the above." I'm not willing to speculate about things >>>that I ultimately have no way of proving. IE how can I prove what he was >>>thinking and what his motivation was? And without any way to prove/disprove >>>anything, I don't see how my comments could help, although they could >>>certainly hurt. >> >>:) >> >>I have a very simple question without speculations. How fatal are the actual >>weaknesses of computer programs? >> >>A) against players like Eduard >> >>B) against Super-GM > >This is simply too hard to answer. It is about like asking the question >"how can we set rules so that a computer and a human play _equally_ without >one side having some unfair advantage?" > >Computers and humans are so different, in such basic ways, that such a >question is impossible to answer. Which means that trying to equate this >weakness of the computer against that weakness of the human is _really_ too >abstract to deal with (to me)... > >> >>C) against a group of GM [playing them in tournament chess] who would >>concentrate on so called computerchess, here I agree I have a somewhat >>theoretical model in mind, namely the idea that they could develop a sort of >>strong anti-comp strategy, I am not talking about the actually known anti-comp >>of Eduard or tricks like Trojan or whatever. >> >>Rolf Tueschen Hehe. So let's forget about seraching _equal_ weaknesses. Let's only talk about the best possible chess (weakly performed by the best SUPER GM) and of the weaknesses of the actual CC. Enough efforts predefined or assured - are these weaknesses fatal or NOT? Better? Rolf Tueschen
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.