Author: Matt Frank
Date: 15:00:43 02/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
>>For matches between humans it is almost invariant at the GM level. >For example, there were this many GMs in the following events: > >26 GMs in 59th Hoogovens > 8 GMs in Lost Boys 5th >12 GMs in Fontys 97 > 6 GMs in Hoogovens USA >26 GMs in 60th Hoogovens >14 GMs in US Championships 98 >22 GMs in 61st Hoogovens > >Are you telling me that these GMs have the time to prepare against every other >GM in one of these tournaments, for white and for black? A lot of times, >substitute GMs will be invited at the last minute. Yes, GMs study the games of >other GMs, however, even they do not have an overwhelming knowledge of the style >of play for more than a handful (15 to 20) of the GMs that they play often. >Anything else would be overkill. Kasparov preped for Anand and anyone else he was concerned about; and of course Kasp lost based on prep. In obvious mis-matches prep probably doesn't enter in for the stronger player. >Stating that a GM should prepare against a computer because GMs sometimes >prepare for some of their human opponents is not realistic. The true reason that >this "excuse" is used is that GMs are treading on thin ice with computers (they >do not know exactly how much better they are getting each year) and so they want >an assurance of a possibility of fairness (i.e. the chance to study and practice >with the program). It's a security blanket type of thing. Sure. >>>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). I am fair. >Granted, a GM may feel more comfortable preparing ahead of time. My point is >that the GM can practice against a computer whereas a computer cannot practice >against the GM, therefore, allowing both to prepare gives the GM an advantage. I've addressed this before. >>>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. I agree. What would you do? Make an agreement such as this and risk that your opponent breaks the agreement and then try to prove it after the fact (sour grapes). Or just know that it is an issue and deal with it out front as we have. As I said earlier.... >>That is a pure test of the system that I think is very hard to control for >>(because of concerns by the human particpants >It would not have been if you would have kept it a double blind to begin with. >If during your negotiations with the GM you said, I will not tell you which >program, but on the other hand, the program will not prepare either, would have >been fair. If the GM balked on this, so be it. You could always re-negotiate >with the arrangement you currently have. I think this is unrealistic, for me to expect that the GM would not prep. It's almost ludicrous to expect that. And don't you know the Hergott story by now. >If the GM crushes the program, it will be a battle of researchers (and hence the >reason Bobby Fischer and other GMs would like to see random chess). I think the computer would have the bigger advantage in random chess. >Something to think about for future matches. >KarinsDad :) Yes. >>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.