Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:05:04 11/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2003 at 04:29:47, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >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 Or maybe they are so high because computers do not play often against the right 2000 players. The question is if most 2000 players can draw often against the computers at 120/40 time control and if the same players cannot do the same against GM's. It may be interesting to put a big prize for 2000 players if they draw at least half of their game against chess programs and to do the same if they can draw at least half of their games against GM's when the GM's are also motivated by money. Of course the programs should not be the commercial program but at least use a different book otherwise preperation can be made Unfortunately I do not plan to be the sponsor. Uri
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.