Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:46:51 02/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 1999 at 17:49:28, KarinsDad wrote: >On February 03, 1999 at 16:43:29, Matt Frank wrote: > >>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. > >Only for certain types of matches such as candidate or world championship >matches. > >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. > >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. > >>> >>>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. > >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. > >>> >>>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 > >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. > >>> >>>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. Don't know that I agree here. Tweaking the opening book will be to ensure the computer doesn't leave the opening dead lost, and against a GM, I don't think that means that the testing of Hiarcs 7's strength will be a moot issue. Furthermore, this GM had better begin training on 40/3h time controls as by June, the hardware available will be a tad better. >> >>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 >>:-). > >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). > >>> >>>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. > >Something to think about for future matches. > >KarinsDad :) > >>> >>>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.