Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 01:51:32 01/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2004 at 04:03:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 28, 2004 at 14:40:48, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>On January 27, 2004 at 16:52:59, Mike S. wrote: >> >>>On January 27, 2004 at 03:07:02, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >>> >>>>a) an intelligent engine, which could navigate itself through any opening phase >>> >>>The Rogozenko match has shown that nowadays engines (even if not especially >>>adapted for FRC or Shuffle) are most probably stronger than a "normal" GM at >>>this. Rogozenko lost that match against Tiger 15, even although he was allowed >>>to use a computer for tactical assistance! >> >>GM Rogozenko might not be able to win against computers in FRC with tactical >>assistance. >> >>You conclude from one match (specific player vs. specific program) that >>a normal GM is "most probably" weaker. >>The same person would cry out loud if someone would draw the conclusion from one >>short match Ruffian 2-Shredder 8 that ended clearly in favour of Ruffian 2: >> >>Ruffian 2 is most probably stronger than Shredder 8. >> >>> >>>You always argue like engines would be complete unable to play openings >>>themselves. This is just plain wrong and provides false information for new >>>computerchess fans. It's just that the level of play may be somewhat lower >>>*sometimes* (in a minority of cases IMO), maybe 2300 instead of 2600 in extreme >>>cases, i.e. in difficult long range gambits. Man needed *decades* of opening >>>theory and practise to explore such gambits. Often, much of the old analysis is >>>wrong, refutations are found again and again. So why expect from chess engines, >>>that they find all this correctly in 3 minutes?? :-)) >>> >>>In general, engines will be better than IMs and GMs anyway, when "normal" >>>(normal for computers means very deep) tactical things have to be calculated in >>>the opening. Im not talking about Kasparov, but "normal" GMs. Most engines know >>>the common opening principles quite well (different quality of engines >>>undisputed). >> >>Man, you have obviously no clue about what you are talking here. >>Two of the three best programs according to SSDF (Fritz and Junior) know nothing >>about common opening principles. >>Junior moves its Qeen around in the opening like someone who hasn't learned yet >>how to move with knights and bishops and Deep Fritz plays sometimes even worse: >> >>http://talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?345123 > >Are you sure that Deep fritz8 played the moves?> >I do not have Deep Fritz8 but I suspect that the person who run it did an error >and used a weak personality of Deep Fritz8. The person who run it was Axel Schumacher. I am pretty sure he knows how to setup Deep Fritz 8 and didn't use a weaker personality intentional. My Fritz 8 (8.0026 now) does not like to play 6...e6 but Deep Fritz 8 is the successor that played Kasparov. I assume this version is tuned to be very anti-materialistic? > >No chess program should play the stupid moves in the strongest setting unless it >has serious bugs. This is probably not a bug. It's ahem... A DESIGN WEAKNESS Michael > >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.