Author: James Robertson
Date: 17:26:51 01/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 1999 at 17:24:26, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 26, 1999 at 15:27:13, James Robertson wrote: > >>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. >> > > >I didn't say that it was cheating. I basically said that GMs have that option >which they do not really have (database notwithstanding) against other GMs. > > >>>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. > > >I notice that you missed responding to the only statement I made which >contradicted what you had said in your previous message. Hmmm. The thing is that there are few enough GMs that they *can* prepare for any other GM. Because the players are so close in skill, preparation gives a large advantage. As for the rest of us amateurs, they can beat us without any preparation. > >>> >>>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. >> > > >You are playing semantics with my words. Note the phrase "on average". On >average, Anand wins against most GMs, hence, his high rating. On average, Anand >plays against Karpov at GM strength. It just so happens that Karpov plays at a >slightly higher GM strength. That doesn't seem likely considering Karpov's lower rating. >I doubt that Anand plays at IM strength when he >plays Karpov. No; but Karpov has a knack of exploiting Anand's weaknesses. > > >>>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 > > >Again, you miss one of my words "easier". Fischer had access to an excellent set >of books which helped him immensely. He could still study. Even so, it would >most likely be easier for him today with chess programs and databases. > > >>>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. > > >Yes, I have gotten off of that particular track (in fact, I think I never got on >it). I do not think it is cheating to learn anti-computer techniques from >computers. I just think that having a GM play an unknown opponent is not unfair. > > >> >>> >>>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!!! :) >> > > >Sorry. I thought you knew. :) > > >>>> >>>>Actually, I said that a few posts higher. :) >>>> >>>>> >>>>>KarinsDad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>[snip] > > >KarinsDad :) I have read a lot in this thread that humans have a huge advantage of being able to prepare for their opponent that the computer doesn't have; and that taking away this advantage is fair. But so far no mention of human flaws: nerves, fatigue, emotional stability :), etc, that no computer struggles with. What are your thoughts on this thought? James
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.