Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Does Rebel 10.5 Represent the Current State of the Art?

Author: Harald Faber

Date: 00:30:15 05/28/99

Go up one level in this thread


On May 27, 1999 at 17:59:22, Paulo Soares wrote:

>>>>>>Right, I don't know how strong a chess player with ELO1800 is, I just have a
>>>>>>guess. I am at 1800DWZ, our best club player has 2000DWZ and an ELO2200.
>>>>>>I see a lot in analysis but when this guy starts to play/analyze I am astonished
>>>>>>again and again how much more he sees and realizes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Harald,
>>>>>
>>>>>It makes the following experience: ask for somebody to choose 5
>>>>>positions, of preference closed, and tries to make the analysis of
>>>>>those positions with the aid of some program of which you likes, for
>>>>>one hour. After that ask for the best player of his club making the
>>>>>analysis of the same positions, in the same time, without using a
>>>>>program. I bet with you a beer(man talk that Germany beer is
>>>>>excellent), as his analyses will be very better.
>>>>>Paulo Soares
>>>>
>>>>What do you bet? That the program's analysis is better?
>>>>Then I can say you already lost, I did it with OPEN (!) positions, see the game
>>>>Gambitsoft-Forum vs IM Hans Klarenbeek, game still to go on.
>>>>HUMANS (in my club) came up with GOOD, JUSTIFIED and REASONABLE move suggestions
>>>>and IDEAS. Programs only had stupid move suggestions (or even worse ideas), e.g.
>>>>16.Nf5 and 16.g5 were suggested. 16.g5 might have been a considerable move but
>>>>16.Nf5 is not.
>>>
>>>I think that he does not say that the program's analysis is better but that the
>>>analysis of the team of human with 1800 rating + program is better.
>>>Uri
>>
>>It is still wrong. :-)
>>It took 1900+ (DWZ) to show the right way(s). Programs+me failed. We had some
>>interesting ideas of defence but not for the attack.
>
>Harald, I have the certainty that you are missed in the considerations numbers
>2 and 3 that I made in reply to Robert Yatt:
>"2.  Which is the experience that has that person in this type of analysis?
>      Also it is important, and I say on that due to my experience playing
>      postal chess, assisted for computer, for some years.

No correspondence chess but excellent analysis experience.

>3.  Which the time useed to make the analysis?
>      Better is much time, and I am speaking of hours."

Above it was mentioned " 1 hour".

>I win the bet, and I invite you and Uri(because he is helping me)
>to drink a good Germany beer!   (it's only a joke).

A long way for a German beer I can also get here. :-)

>Paulo Soares.



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.