Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 01:29:47 11/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2003 at 04:05:14, Drexel,Michael wrote:
>On November 16, 2003 at 03:33:28, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>>On November 15, 2003 at 16:46:44, steven blincoe wrote:
>>
>>>that i am actually looking forward to game 3 tomorrow
>>>perhaps this will mark the end of the Kasparov era..
>>>he is no longer the human World Champion and hopefully with a loss tomorrow or
>>>in the fourth and final game,he will no longer be the one representing the
>>>human race against the silicon monster
>>>
>>>even though i have been calling,nay,begging, for any other Super GM to play
>>>Fritz for quite some time now..i think the rest of the chess world,and certainly
>>>the pundits who grace these pages will agree,that Kasparov should no longer be
>>>the "Automatic " choice to play Fritz
>>>
>>>lets the game begin!!
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>
>>>PS..and i am also expecting him to burst out into quite a tantrum if he does
>>>lose tomorrow
>>>some thing to the effect of..."i dont like the 3d glasses..waa.waa!"
>>>OR
>>>"everyone os cheating!!"
>>
>>
>> Everything can happen: we can only speculate about
>> the outcome in this [much too] short match. It is
>> my hope that the computer program will loose. Not
>> because of Kasparov but due to the fact that the
>> best programs do still play a lot of dubious moves.
>> Their chess understanding is not more than 2100
>> Elo, their tactical skill however 3400 Elo and this
>> is sufficient to beat all humans who try to fight
>> the silicon monsters with tactical means. And in this
>> respect, Kasparov is a good opponent for computers.
>> I admire his dynamic style and his courage to play
>> in the same way vs computers, but this may be too
>> dangerous today even for the best chess player of
>> all times. If on the other hand humans would follow some rules:
>> 1) never try to play for a win in even slightly better positions
>> 2) avoid to get in time trouble
>> 3) no opening experiments, sound, cautious but not passive set up
>> 4) exchange of pieces whenever possible without weakening the position
>> in particular the queens
>> 5) playing a "do-nothing-but-do-it-well-strategy"
>> 6) no games under time control 40'/40, better higher
>> then it will even for a 2000 Elo-player be possible to get a lot
>> of draws and high rated players would hardly ever lose a single
>> game. And as a result of this, the Elo rating of the best programs
>> would be 2200-2300 instead of 2800.
>> Kurt
>
>You can hardly follow these rules if you want to win (or even draw) a match
>versus the machine.
>
>I see no reason to not play for the win if you have a slightly better position.
>If you have some strategical pluses and the position is relatively easy to play
>for the human you should always try to win.
>
>Michael
Hi Michael
I fully agree with you and it's clear that nobody would
be interested in organizing such events if strong human
players would follow my rules. With my statement I only
wanted to say that the programs Elo ratings are so high
only because humans play their normal style.
Kurt
2800 under
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.