Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 03:39:15 02/05/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2006 at 13:51:56, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 04, 2006 at 12:58:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 04, 2006 at 10:14:08, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 04, 2006 at 08:55:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 04, 2006 at 04:20:17, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 03, 2006 at 19:29:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 03, 2006 at 17:02:46, Torstein Hall wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 02, 2006 at 17:47:29, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On February 02, 2006 at 07:06:23, Vikrant Malvankar wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Peter Swidler on Computers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2897 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Chess and computer: what is the interest other than the money? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You mean playing against the computer? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>For me there is no particular interest. I never have been offered any serious >>>>>>>>>matches, but, in general, I think playing against computers is not very >>>>>>>>>exciting. Computers play so well these days that, to have a chance to win, you >>>>>>>>>have to work very hard – and work hard at things that probably will be counter >>>>>>>>>productive when you play against humans – so it probably will harm your chess a >>>>>>>>>little. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If there is no financial incentive, I don’t see why there is any interest at >>>>>>>>>all. You can try competing with computers at calculation, but this is not very >>>>>>>>>wise, if you want to win. So, basically you have to train in playing closed >>>>>>>>>positions, keeping it as simple and as non-tactical as possible. It is possible >>>>>>>>>but there is not much fun in that. Playing the computer – I mean proper seven >>>>>>>>>hour games – I never saw any attraction in that, apart from money. So I don’t >>>>>>>>>really play against the computers. I use computers, as we all do, for help when >>>>>>>>>analyzing, as a background check. You analyze and have the computer running in >>>>>>>>>the background, to keep your analysis relatively blunder free. And that’s about >>>>>>>>>it. " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You could also say "if there is no financial incentive to beat other humans, I >>>>>>>>don't see why there is any interest at all". It's what being a professional >>>>>>>>means. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Vas >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It must be boring to be professional, if they only ever play for the love of >>>>>>>money. But I can not imagine that is the attitude most professional chess >>>>>>>players has. I even doubt Peter Svidler feel that way... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Torstein >>>>>> >>>>>>If you and Vas speak about it, it cant be off-topic, so please let me >>>>>>participate. I wished you two wouldnt twist what Svidler said. He said that _if_ >>>>>>you weaken your own chess against a computer THEN only the money could be the >>>>>>incentive to play - >>>>> >>>>>If playing against computers paid the bills, then no doubt Mr. Swidler would be >>>>>worried that playing against humans might interfere with his computer-beating >>>>>skills. I don't see anything wrong with this - money is a big source of >>>>>motivation, although for many people it's not the only one. >>>>> >>>>>Vas >>>> >>>>Vas, >>>>I'm a bit astonished that you really insist on your logical failure. Cant you >>>>see that for him (Svidler) the money isnt the main factor but his chess? You >>>>twist his main argument around. You want to add that if he could make a living >>>>out of weakening his chess then he would enjoy doing it? In genral I would say >>>>no from my experience with many people who have that chess vice and who prefer >>>>to live on welfare level but who would never make a normal living even if they >>>>have a certain education. So in general I would say, no, Svidler and all others >>>>would only see their chess. But you could have an argument if for a lot of money >>>>the player would intentionally spend a year or more outside the normal chess >>>>circus just to makemoney against computers. Although I doubt that potentional >>>>Wch candidates would do it other than GM Roman type of guys who have becoming >>>>older, I could still imagine that this would make sense. So, yes, in such rare >>>>cases where someone can make a million dollars he could spend a year of his >>>>normal chess career. Bt all others and only for 10 or 20000 dollars certainly >>>>shouldnt and wouldnt do that. For them chess is their destiny and NOT some >>>>thousands that they well could make in a couple of Opens. >>>>Vas, honestly, it is a bit indecent from your side, to argue this way against >>>>your former collegues when actually you have gone commercial yourself and >>>>certainly couldnt make a single dollar out of your own chess talents anymore. ou >>>>should well know that your GM collegues have at least your own dedication for >>>>their chess but probably even stronger. - Having said that I add that I think >>>>that you know that I found it a bit, well, strange, how you at first made the >>>>present of your first version of Rybka and then overnight went commercial and >>>>then used the same people with their present as new beta-testers after they >>>>bought the second version. It smells a bit, well, "fishy" IMO but then I'm >>>>perhaps a hopeless idealist. :) >>>> >>>>Thanks for being a nice advocat of the devil so far... >>> >>>For some reason you assume that trying to win against humans is more interesting >>>for GM's relative to trying to win against computers. >>> >>>I see no reason for that assumption. >> >>Then I must repeat what Peter told us. Playing a computer is deteriorating one's >>chess. Period. Will you deny that? > >I deny it. >Knowing to play against a computer does not mean forgetting how to play against >humans for super GM's because they have very good memory(otherwise they could >not become super GM's. > >My opinion is that it can cause super GM to be relatively weaker against other >human opponents only because other players learn at the same time effective >tricks against humans when they only learn effective tricks against computers. > As I see it, the situation is perfectly symmetrical. We have: 1) human vs human 2) computer vs computer 3) computer vs human None of these is better or worse than the others. Each requires its own form of adjustment, or "lack of objectivity" - yes, computer vs computer included. Personally, I find computer vs computer the most interesting. Vas >> >> >>> >>>Note that world champion Emanuel lasker already considered the subjective >>>qualities of his opponent in addition to the objective requirements of his >>>position on the board so the idea of considering the weaknesses of the opponent >>>is not a new idea and I see no reason that GM's will find it more interesting to >>>try to take advantage of the weaknesses of human opponent and not to try to take >>>advantage of the weakness of a computer opponent. >> >>Ok, fine, if you dont see a reason, then I will give you that reason. The reason >>is the difference between human and machine chess. Playing a machine you must >>forcedly play stupid chess. Stupid seen from the perspective of human chess. You >>learn stupid chess. And after a while when you play human chessplayers you cant >>simply change your stupid chess into superior human chess. > >I do not understand the problem. > >Humans can change their choice based on the opponent and if they know that the >opponent is an expert in some theory line not to play that line against him. > > > This is basically >>what Svidler meant. He was dead certain on the point! >> >> >> >>> >>>Of course when the money factor support playing against humans then you can >>>expect them to prefer playing against humans but if they can make equal money >>>from playing against computers and from playing against humans(and I am talking >>>about the future and not only about the next year) then I guess that at least >>>part of the strong GM's are going to choose playing against computers. >> >>This wont happen. Not because you cant find such human players but, attention, >>because nobody wants to throw his money into the bin. Uri, didnt you still >>understand it? If human GM would play for years against machines they would make >>putty out of these machines. And with stupid chess alone. > > >I think that it is only a problem of time. > >Maybe today humans can beat the best machines by stupid chess(I am not sure >about that) but both software and hardware get better so we can see if there is >an improvement in the machines. > >Note that even if no human can beat the machines we still can have a champion >who score best against the machines and scoring 40% against the machines may be >enough to be the human world champion against the machines. > > > Because it's very easy >>to find out the actual weaknessed of the machines. So if the GM would make putty >>then no more sponsors. > > >The opposite. > >The reason that we have no sponsors is that sponsors do not believe in the >ability of humans to beat the machines. > >We had sponsors in the time that machines were weaker and there was for years >competition of humans against machines until 1997 >Then hsu decided to destroy all the fun by beating kasparov and after that >sponsors do not believe in the ability of humans. > >Uri
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.