Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:12:18 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 13:26:05, Ed Schröder wrote: >On December 13, 1999 at 10:12:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 13, 1999 at 05:44:37, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>>Posted by Robert Hyatt on December 12, 1999 at 10:19:26: >>> >>>>>>But it clearly isn't doing _nearly_ as well vs humans (even with anti-human on) >>>>>>as it is doing against other programs... >>>>> >>>>>Do you have some game examples that supports your strong judgement? >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>> >>> >>>>Somebody else already posted a really bad result vs a humaon on FICS (winning >>>>1/3, losing 2/3, against a player that isn't a "master" of anything but anti- >>>>computer chess. I have watched "other" players (not often as I don't watch >>>>very often, except when crafty/scrappy is idle) also cause problems... This >>>>is the most striking example of comp-vs-comp strength being _far_ different >>>>than comp-vs-human strength that I recall in recent years... >>> >>>This specific case wasn't an issue of playing strength but time-control which >>>in the meantime is corrected. >>> >>>I am still waiting for the game examples that supports your judgement. >>> >> >> >>Keep waiting. I looked thru several 'shutka' games. In a couple time was the >>problem, but if you look carefully, _many_ games were _not_ lost on time. They >>were lost OTB. However, I hardly consider it my job to point out where it is >>playing poorly in the endgame or whatever (oops, almost said too much already). >>Just don't make the mistake of thinking that this was 60 losses on time, 30 >>wins OTB. That wasn't the case _at all_. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>>But as I mentioned before, remember that "I am 10 years behind the commercial >>>>programs". I don't see any reason to point out the weaknesses of someone that >>>>is 10 years ahead of me, wouldn't you agree? But, in fact, the problems are >>>>very obvious, so my analysis isn't needed anyway... >>> >>>It took me some time to figure what you are talking about. A few short remarks: >>>a) it wasn't said that way, b) action forces reaction, c) let's live in peace. >>> >>> >>>>Fixing the problems is going to adversely affect its currently great >>>>anti-computer style of play, however... >>> >>>Oh come on. >>> >>>Ed >> >> >>No "oh come on" here. It needs knowledge in a few significant places. I know >>of no way to implement this kind of knowledge without losing significant speed. >>And that is going to make a difference in how it plays against computers. The >>"holes" will become apparent after playing a few IM/GM players... Right now I >>have not seen it ever refuse to win a pawn, given the chance. Which might be >>the perfect strategy against computers. But against some GM/IM players I know, >>it is asking for trouble. _particularly_ at fast time controls, which is how >>most programs get used... > >We will see. The very first game Tiger played against a GM it won. I would >certainly call that a good start. > >I am working on a decisive match against Lithunia. 6 boards. 2xGM and 4xIM >hopefully. Tiger will play on 2 boards. > >Ed That is the right way to answer the question...
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.