Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 13:36:23 12/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 1999 at 16:17:54, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >I don't understand. Let me think out aloud. Correct me if I'm wrong. >Does your post say the following: > >"Hi, I'm (Robert or whoever) and I have serious doubts about claims of weaker >players beating top chess programs. Because these programs play at master or >even at GM strenght, it's very hard to beat these programs at top strength. > >Maybe it's possible to win an accidental game out of very many, but even then I >suspect a glitch, and can hardly believe you could reproduce that win. Computer >programs are so much more consistant than human players, that I have serious >doubts about supposed "weak moments". > >Main reasons to back up my doubts about those claims are: > >- it often happens: a loose statement posted here without the backup of a real >game played between that player and that particular program; no evidence, no >proof, no need to post your claim. > >- *if* these games are posted, I can not reproduce (all) moves of the chess >engine mentioned - at the time controls supplied, and on that specific hardware. >So I suspect a weaker engine setting, or other deliberate tweaking. > >- if I can reproduce them with my own copy of that program, I observe a lot of >moves played by the other side (the average chess player) which I could >reproduce with the chess engine. Because that hit is over 95% of the moves I >suspect computer assistance. That's not my definition of "I beated the computer" >. In that case the computer beated itself. Just an adition: many players againts Computer already have lost any conscience of how many times they take-back, there favourite tactical manouever to avoid a flop. I even dare to deliver as jmy contributions to comter science the following iron law: number of wins against computer by less than master class players are directly proportional to the number of take-backs they alloud to themselves as matter of fact, even without thinking animore hey are cheating.. fernando, the law giver.. > >Here you find a game to underline my statements. >I'm very curious if other people have arguments against this." > > >Or maybe Robert I'm wrong, and you didn't think that way, then my apologies, but >I supposed those were your motives. > >And if you do, I (Jeroen, that is) fully agree with you, and would add that >there is no use to post phoney games on this BB between humans and computers. I, >We, like to see games that point out weaknesses of computer engines. >I like to reproduce those games and add theses themes to my anti-computer >database. > >Thx. > >Jeroen ;-}
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.