Author: Lawrence S. Tamarkin
Date: 18:51:40 03/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
But lets not forget that we would like to continue to attract the GM's to playing these matches at places like the ICC. As long as there is enough money from somewhere to pay them to play, its probably no problem. (At least for getting them to play). Another aspect is that of the interest of the matches themselves; if the programs are always just going to win, (at the time controls used), then the matches become pointless. But if some compromises can be worked out that continues the questions of what type of play the GM's can use to beat the wretchid machines, than the interest in seeing these things come about continues. Another question - Wasn't there more of a sustained interest in seeing Karpov-Kasparov matches, when it was quite unclear who was gonna win? Now Kasparov says the only really interesting match would be against #2, Vishy Anand & himself. He says there just wasn't enough interest in Shirov for the financing to happen. (Of course I hope that Kasparov is wrong). I think everyone agrees that even if a reunification match between Karpov & Kasparov could happen, it would be very boring indeed. (unless by some miricle Karpov pulled ahead to an early lead and didn't then lose it - fat chance of that happening!) So by this logic most matches are not even very interesting if they become too pridictable, and it makes sense to consider ways to conduct future events. But of course the most important opinions are by the GM's themselves, and the programmer's, like Bruce Morland. mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict! On March 27, 1999 at 19:56:14, Mark Young wrote: >On March 27, 1999 at 19:37:41, Charles Milton Ling wrote: > >>On March 27, 1999 at 19:07:30, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On March 27, 1999 at 18:34:14, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: >>> >>>>Ferret won its match against Wilder 2-0 on the ICC on 3/27/99. Wilder appeared >>>>to have some winning possibilities in the 2nd game as White. He declined to >>>>take the draw that was available by force, and wound up losing in the time >>>>scramble that ensued. I agree with all the people who were suggesting that >>>>computer programs have become such killer's at this G/30 stuff that some kind of >>>>increment is in order for the human when this kind of match takes place. >>>> >>>> >>>>mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict! >>> >>>I don't understand the logic, why should the human player get increments when >>>Playing g/30. If computer are now stronger then the human GM's at G/30, its time >>>for the Grandmaster to agree to play at standard time controls. It has been >>>clear for some time now that only a very few and best grandmasters can play the >>>best micro computer programs at fast time controls such as G/30 and below and >>>have any hope of winning a match. >>> >>>Again nice job Ferret and Bruce, and its time for the Grandmaster to play "real >>>chess" >> >>My suggestion (and I doubt it is new) is as follows. The computer profits from >>being able to move "in no time at all" (in the second game, I believe Ferret >>used about 1 second for the dozen moves before it was out of book). Give the >>human 2 seconds per move to compensate for this. (No increment for the >>computer, of course. Probably difficult to set up on the servers, though, I >>just realized. Hmm.) This won't really change anything fundamental, I honestly >>believe, but it seems a bit fairer to me. (E.g. compensation for the phenomenon >>just mentioned, human cannot lose dead-drawn endings...) >>$0.02 >>Charley > >There is nothing fair or unfair about a computer being able to blitz off moves >fast. It is just a strength and the nature of a computer. > >Humans have there strengths too, but I never heard of making things more fair >for computers when GM's were winning, so why should this fairness issue only >come up now that the programs are winning.(Did programmer say it was unfair to >use anti-computer tactics) When the programs were being beat by the Grandmasters >at G/30...this fairness thing about a program being able to blitz off moves fast >was never an issue, and should not be now.
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.