Author: Pete Galati
Date: 14:42:20 12/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 1999 at 16:36:23, Fernando Villegas wrote: >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.. [.... One of the nice things about Chessbase interfaces is that they'll allow you to play "rated" games, where they'll allow you to get a rating as calculated against a series of games against the program. It's a real ego flattener, it does not allow you to take back any moves (the only honest way to play Chess), and though I have not used the "rated game" feature in my Extreme program for a long time, I don't really think it even lets you use Window's multi-tasking either, but I could be wrong about that. I've seen very few programs that won't let you take back moves altogether, Nero 5 doesn't as I recall, but I'd like to see more programs not allowing it, OR AT LEAST having a setting that can only be changed in a peogram initiation file that went something like: takeback = 1 or takeback = 0 (or true, false or on, off etc.) This would discourage cheating, and I say this realizing that the average program can out calculate me many times, and I know that I'll never beat my favorite programs going full strength. But it's just that irritating matter of principle that creaps in where I think you should not be allowed to take back moves (even though I _do_ take moves back against a program) Pete
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.