Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:55:18 05/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2004 at 10:41:12, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On May 08, 2004 at 10:11:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 08, 2004 at 07:18:27, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >> >>>On May 08, 2004 at 04:34:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>You are absulutely right. >>>>>>It is obvious that humans already solved chess so they know if a move is a >>>>>>blunder or not a blunder so you can be sure that all the question marks are >>>>>>correct. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is also obvious that the number of mistakes is what decides the game so if >>>>>>your opponent did 2 mistakes you can let yourself to do one mistake like letting >>>>>>him to force mate and you are not going to lose. >>>>>> >>>>>>:_( >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>You know, Uri, I have never seen you do anything but post how other people are >>>>>wrong (never with any reasons of course). Many other people have noticed your >>>>>unending flood of negativity. It is difficult to consider this post as anything >>>>>other than a flame. It appears I am going to have to take off the kid gloves >>>>>and dispose of you. >>>> >>>>Isn't it natural to only post if you disagree? >>>> >>>>Anyway, I suspect Uri has a point. >>>>It's not unusual for computers to play "unatural" moves, just think of the >>>>Hedgehog Junior played against Kasparov. >>>> >>>>All the time the GM's were saying how strange Junior's moves were, how "it >>>>showed no understanding of the position" blah blah blah. >>>> >>>>So please explain why Kasparov suddenly had to fight for a draw after 10 >>>>questionmark moves from Junior! >>>> >>>>-S. >>> >>>I never thought this day would come - but I agree with Uri here. :-) >>> >>>Sports aren't about beautiful play. Sports are about winning. If someone is >>>playing ugly, and winning, then it's your sense of aesthetics which needs to be >>>reviewed. >>> >>>Computers have a long history of winning ugly. In the recent Fritz-Kasparov and >>>Junior-Kasparov matches, the machines made many many more "mistakes" (according >>>to human opinion) than Kasparov. But - if these mistakes aren't punished - are >>>they really mistakes? Is it a mistake to leave Shaq wide open for three point >>>shots? (Or send him to the line for "free" throws?) It's impossible to speak >>>about objectivity here. You can only look at the results. >> >>However in kasparov-fritz, kasparov at a point needed to make a full point to >>not lose the match. That game fritz has 0.000000000000% of a chance. From start >>to end kasparov completely killed it. > > >Hi Vincent, > > >Yes, it is true, but the opening selection of Fritz did help him. Though this is true, Fritz cannot play certain healthy alternatives. I feel the book preparation for fritz against kasparov was real good. >> >>When kasparov wants to win, he will win from the machine. >> >>For how many years to go, i do not know. >> >>So far he just toyed with them in matches. > >Yes, but on a match one needs to make the following considerations: > >1. where is the opponent stronger? >2. does it have some weak points? Programs have weak points which are really 2000 level. You as an openingsbook creator i do not need to tell this. Tactical in open positions they are real good nowadays. Kasparov is nowhere bad in chess level. His only weak point is money. >3. do the chess program have stronger points then the opponent? If yes, which >ones? >4. which openings or positions does the opponent play usually? >So, Kasparov is stronger than any chess program, but not in everything. In order >to reduce the gap/and or have better chances it is necessary to be able to spot >the opponent weaknesses and reach positions better for the program. Kasparov is everywhere better. In general he doesn't calculate tactical deeper that's all. Or do you believe kasparov non-deliberately blundered that pawn on e5? If i would make such a blunder ok, it can happen. But Kasparov, forget it. >This will change the strength ratio. If the ratio is too high it may be >impossible to have any chances. It is true that in the future toying with chessprograms gets harder and harder. There is just a few capable of doing it now and they all are > 2600 FIDE rated. >To find the way to decrease as much as possible the opponent strenght and put >the computer to play at the highest possible level is not easy. That is because the computer has weaker spots than the best human players. Incredible but true. Of course this will not last long. >I have been working on this for many years hoping to get the chance to be in a >team facing Kasparov. >I hope I will have the chance soon. I count at hydra-kasparov, the sheikh earns a year like 30 billion dollar. There was a great big chess tournament in UAE. Despite that the Sheikh has been shipping his best player to the Netherlands at ict4 to just keep with him on the phone when hydra played and inform him on what he thought the result would be. So this player was just there with the hydra team to watch the games where he missed an opportunity of a lifetime to play in a big tournament at home. He must have felt very sad. It shows how important the Sheikh finds Hydra. Kasparov is next, i'm sure of it. >One day the computers will be stronger than the strongest human chess player. >This is sure. >The question is: how far away is that day? >Sandro Kasparov definitely is not trying so far, but it is trivial that the level of the games fritz-kasparov was a lot higher than the matches before. Also from kasparov's side some openings he played were real sharp. Take game 1. Kasparov didn't want to lose this match, that was clear. > > >> >>>Vas
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.