Author: KarinsDad
Date: 10:13:58 02/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 1999 at 13:21:32, Matt Frank wrote: [snip] > >I totally agree, and that is precisely what the GM and I have talked about. In >all fairness he should have access to any Hiarcs 7 games that he can get his >hands on, and I will get Hiarcs 7 to analyze the heck out of each of his games. >Further, I anticipate that Hiarcs 7 will have explored additional openings >besides the prepared opening book library provided by the programmers. Once the >GMs name is revealed I will put out an all points bulletin for games by the GM >that may not be available to me through my commercial sources :-) . > >Sincerely, >Matt Frank Matt, I have read the Hiarcs7 vs. GM posts with interest and it suddenly dawned on me that the majority of chess players in the world DO NOT analyze their opponents games ahead of time. GMs and IMs do it and some local players may do it against each other, but that is it for the most part. To be totally FAIR, you should have never told the GM which computer program he was playing (you could have even mislead him by saying a new program). If you would have done that, the GM could not have prepared for Hiarcs 7 specifically (just computers in general) and you could have not prepared with Hiarcs 7 for the GM (i.e. just people in general). This analyzing of style to gain an advantage is kind of bogus. It cannot be helped at the GM level for human vs. human play, especially in this day and age of databases and NICs, but to have an unbiased test of the computer vs. the human, it would have been better to use a double blind. You would have tested two non-poluted entities. You are not testing whether Hiarcs 7 plays at GM strength, you are testing whether a tweaked version (i.e. changing the opening book) of Hiarcs 7 can play at GM strength against a GM who is trying to find flaws within Hiarcs 7 ahead of time. Instead of two warriors battling, it's like two librarians battling. For example, if the GM finds a series of moves that leads to a lost game (or a series of lost games based on different choices in the opening) in Hiarcs 7 and manages to get Hiarcs 7 to play it, what has this proved? That the chess program is partially deterministic? As I said, it is kind of a bogus test (interesting and anticipated, but bogus). KarinsDad :)
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.