Author: James Robertson
Date: 12:27:13 01/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 1999 at 09:56:15, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 26, 1999 at 01:28:51, James Robertson wrote: > >[snip] > >> >>To answer your argument: I think it is only fair for someone to know who their >>opponent is, as it *will* affect their play. Since this is true, it is not the >>GM's fault the computer's play is predictible. I.e. Fischer could not declare >>that his opponents were "cheating" because they prepared specific defenses to >>his very predictable 1. e4. > >On the other hand, Fischer could not in his playing days, pay $49 for a >program, >take it's playing apart in the privacy of his home, and then crush it in a If a programmer has the "hutzpah" (did I spell that right?) to SELL a program and then say that STUDYING it is cheating, then I say he should go jump in a lake. If you want to avoid people studying your program, keep every detail of it secret like the DB team did. >match >(of course, in his day, he didn't have to study to beat a computer). > >Having a GM play an unknown opponent is no different than what the majority of >us amateurs have done for years, play someone you do not know. It is not unfair >as you state, it is just different than the GM "prepare for your opponent if >possible" style of play. > >Another point is, it shouldn't matter who a GMs opponent is, s/he should play >at GM strength (on average) This isn't true. Anand seems to have a terrible record against Karpov, losing again and again to him, yet his rating is 50 points higher, and he creams many people Karpov has extreme difficulty with. There are many other examples of this. Take also Kasparov's perfect record vs. Shirov; Shirov in turn has an excellent record vs. Kramnik, a player Kasparov has trouble with. >or s/he shouldn't be a GM. However, with the advent of >chess programs and databases, I wouldn't say it is chess programs and databases that did this; look at "Zuckerbook", who had fabulous book knowledge without all the computer help. >it's easier than ever for a studious GM to have >an >advantage over a GM whose abilities are based on raw talent. It forces the >second type of GM (like Capablanca) to study or lose. > >Finally, there are hundreds of GMs out in the world, but there are only about 6 >programs approaching GM level. For those GMs who are not ducking programs, it >is >still currently easier to understand the flaws of those 6 programs (and to >study >against them) than it is to understand the flaws of the several other hundred >GMs. This seems to miss the point; the discussion started with the argument that all programs have similar flaws, and therefore it is "cheating" to learn techniques against 1 program that can apply to all of them. I say that if programs have similar flaws, it is the fault of their programmers, not something anybody else should have to worry about. > >Opinionated as ever :) :) James > >KarinsDad > >> >>> >>>As someone else said, "Imagine Tal sacrificing in a tournament filled with >>>computers; an ugly sight.". You haven't yet acknowledged credit to me for saying this timeless phrase!!! :) >> >>Actually, I said that a few posts higher. :) >> >>> >>>KarinsDad >>> >>> >>[snip]
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.