Author: Harvey Williamson
Date: 12:49:08 01/19/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2006 at 15:35:17, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 19, 2006 at 10:05:37, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On January 19, 2006 at 09:49:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On January 19, 2006 at 09:41:39, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>On January 19, 2006 at 09:01:07, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 19, 2006 at 08:45:23, Albert Silver wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>I think that if a program doesn't know not to repeat a losing line >>>>>>>then it deserves it's fate. >>>>>> >>>>>>There's only one problem: it isn't the engine's fault. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You mean it's not the fault of the engine if it makes a decisive fault in a >>>>>chess game? I think this is a simple wordplay but it has no real value as a >>>>>verdict. >>>> >>>>The choice of openings is not made by the engine, but by the book used and the >>>>parameters chosen in the program (such as the Fritz interface, Arena, etc.). The >>>>engine makes no opening choice of any kind. So this huge repetition of openings >>>>is not Rybka's choice/fault but the fault of the openings settings used. Rybka >>>>just played the openings it was told to. It had no choice in the matter when it >>>>was told to play the same opening 31 times. >>>> >>>> Albert >>> >>> >>>All agreed but why did it play the losing line if it's otherware is so strong? >>>We always touch the same point as last year, as every year in CC. I always said >>>that the pretended strength is a myth. These engines are not strong like our >>>super GM. >> >> >>First of all, being strong doesn't mean it is unbeatable. GMs win and lose, and >>even the World Champion. The argument as to comparing a top engine with a top GM >>is old and pretty pointless. The engines perform at a 2600+ level, but somehow >>this makes people think that since the 2600+ are all GMs and we know what to >>expect from a GM, the engines must also play like them. They don't. They have >>their strengths and weaknesses, and when matched against GMs they perform 2600+. >>The arguments on GMs getting tired, or only losing because of a tactical mistake >>are pointless, and sound like the whining I hear at my chess club when a player >>who was 'completely winning' loses a game. >> >>As to the opening, my objection (and you've changed the subject here) was that >>the results were shown as a comparison of strength between H10 with special >>settings against Rybka, and in the circumstances presented, I don't think one >>could draw any such conclusions. >> >>What if I were to instead choose an opening where Hiarcs 10 lost badly to Rybka >>and had them play THAT opening 31 times instead? Would this then be proof that >>Rybka was far superior? No, of course not. >> >> Albert > >To my thinking this result simply shows the Beta has no "book learning" or >"positinal learning" at this time. Seems like a waste of time to prove a Beta >is broken beyond the initial find. I once caught Fritz with a learning bug. It >was playing Junior and Junior won 26 consecutive games as black with the same >opening. I notified Chessbase and they had Fritz fixed in very short time. One >of the few quick fixes I've seen them come up with. (Although it was probably >the Fritz programmer who fixed it) >Jim
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.