Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 09:49:59 05/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2004 at 10:55:18, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. I do not agree. They were good against other computers, not against Kasparov. This is my believe. > >>> >>>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. I know it. >You as an openingsbook creator i do not need to tell this. Tactical in open positions they are real >good nowadays. Especially on multi processors hardware. > >Kasparov is nowhere bad in chess level. His only weak point is money. Yes, it is the weakest point, but he is a human so he has some weak points even if relatively weak. > >>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. This could be a weak point...don't you think so? > >Or do you believe kasparov non-deliberately blundered that pawn on e5? Did I said so? > >If i would make such a blunder ok, it can happen. > >But Kasparov, forget it. Nearly never...not never... Golia had no chance theorically, but it did won David...nothing is impossible...it is however quite difficult...this is the difference... > >>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. Yes, they used to have very many...now not that many...still a lot... > >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. Believe it or not I earn much much less? Do you believe it?:-) > >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. Hydra cannot win...at least not in the next at least 3 years...my opinion...things are changing it is difficult to make too long time statements... > >He must have felt very sad. > >It shows how important the Sheikh finds Hydra. > >Kasparov is next, i'm sure of it. OK, you know my opinion of the match... > >>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. Yes, this is true, but still the gap was impressive...to me... > >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. I believe that he wanted a draw score to make more money with more matches in the future...after the disappointment from IBM...he learns from experience like everybody else...:-) > >> >> >>> >>>>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.