Author: Mark Ryan
Date: 15:25:01 05/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2005 at 02:40:51, John Merlino wrote: >On May 21, 2005 at 21:30:37, Mark Ryan wrote: > >>On May 20, 2005 at 21:11:03, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>On May 20, 2005 at 19:12:00, Mark Ryan wrote: >>> >>>>On May 20, 2005 at 17:40:02, jim r uselton wrote: >>>> >>>>>Let's say a person has access to a time machine and grabs his shredder 7 and >>>>>goes back to the year 1924. Let's say,For the sake of argument, he talks his way >>>>>in to the great New York Tournament. This guy doesn't know much chess so he lets >>>>>his Shredder do all the playing. My question is---where do you think he would >>>>>finish, first---fourth---last? >>>>> >>>>>Thanks for your input! >>>>> Jim >>>> >>>>I think Shredder 7 would win the tournament. However, I have always thought >>>>that Emanuel Lasker would have a good chance against even a strong computer >>>>program because: >>>> >>>>1. Capablanca once described Lasker as the best tactician; >>>>2. Lasker almost never blundered; >>>>3. Lasker had superb control of his nerves; >>>>4. Lasker was a great defensive player; >>>> >>>>All of the above qualities go a long way to neutralizing the computer's >>>>advantages against human beings. Moreover, to exploit the computer's weakness: >>>> >>>>5. Lasker had a profound ability to make moves that other players >>>>mis-evaluated. I believe it is a misconception that Lasker deliberately played >>>>weak moves that he knew would trouble his particular opponent. I don't think >>>>Lasker deliberately played a weak move in his whole life. He played moves that >>>>he knew were good, but that his opponent would mistakenly imagine were bad. The >>>>classic example is 12.f5 against Capablanca in 1914 (St. Petersburg), which the >>>>great Cuban insisted for years afterwards was a weak move, but which is now >>>>generally accepted as being a good move. >>>> >>>>I think Lasker, more than any other player, would have some chance of finding >>>>such a move against a program. (But I think we should let him play a full match >>>>against the computer, and not just one game :) >>>> >>>>Mark >>> >>>FYI, here are the Lasker personality settings in CM 9000 (my apologies if people >>>expect a different format for this, I'm just typing them as I see them). >>> >>>All settings are default except: >>>Attacker/Defender = 30 >>>Material/Positional = -25 >>>Contempt for Draw = 1.0 >>>Control of Center = 105 >>>King Safety = 90 >>>Passed Pawns = 110 >>>Queen Value = 8.7 >>>Knight Value = 3.3 >>> >>>Playing style description: Of all the Chessmaster 9000 opponents, the >>>Lasker-style will more often play the opponent as much or more than the board. >>>This personality is a fabulous defensive player and fine tactician, equally at >>>home in open or closed positions. >>> >>>Enjoy! >>> >>>jm >> >>I think we could add "ruthless" to the list. I just played Chessmaster 9000 >>Lasker, and he forced to me resign in 16 moves. :) >> >>Mark > >Well, I just played the Lasker personality, and after 19 moves found myself in >this very unenviable position: > >[D]5rk1/ppp2rb1/3pp1n1/7q/3nPB2/P1NP2R1/1PPQ1RPP/6K1 w - - 0 20 > >I resigned three moves later.... :-) > >jm It's good to know I'm not the only one. And I must remember to proofread my messages before I send them: "he forced to me resign" should of course be "he forced me to resign". Mark
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.