Author: Matt Frank
Date: 13:43:29 02/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 1999 at 13:13:58, KarinsDad wrote: >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. For matches between humans it is almost invariant at the GM level. > >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). To be totaly fair to the GM he needs to know if it is possible to prepare himself as against any opponent in a match. And as Dann has said on a previous post these matches are more likely to occur if GMs feel that they won't get sideswiped. > >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. That is a pure test of the system that I think is very hard to control for (because of concerns by the human particpants > >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. So when humans adjust for an upcoming match what would you consider that > >Instead of two warriors battling, it's like two librarians battling. That is not the way it will look in June. Trust me. Librairians don't get bloody :-). > >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? Hiaracs 7 has lost some games that when analyzed will show they were draws or possibly wines in some situations. It is just such preparation prior to a match that makes for new and exciting chess. > >As I said, it is kind of a bogus test (interesting and anticipated, but bogus). I will agree that the purest test would be Hiarcs 7 versus GM sight unseen by each side. That would have been the optimum situation for the computer. However it is not meant to be. > >KarinsDad :) Best regards, Matt
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.