Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:32:01 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1999 at 02:26:26, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Robert Hyatt on December 11, 1999 at 21:08:12: >> >>Comp vs Comp will say nothing about how comp vs human goes. IE for an example, >>Tiger 12 looks _very_ strong vs computers, but so-so against humans. I have >>not yet studied its games very carefully, although I now have a couple of dozen >>games vs Crafty on ICC and FICS. It seems to be perfectly tuned to beat >>computers... it seems very materialistic and ready to accept any gambit offered, >>and they try to make the opponent justify it accurately. > >>How it is going to do once it is out 'en masse' will be very interesting to >>watch. > >Same here. > > >>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 > Here is one game I had an opportunity to watch this afternoon. What stands out is white playing Nxg6, opening the h-file, then following that with o-o and castling into a bristling attack. And then making it easy for black to fully open the h-file a couple of moves later. This was a slowish game (2 minutes on the clock, 12 second increment, played on FICS). I think you will agree that we don't normally see 2000 players take on a computer like this and have the computer 'self-attack'. There are other things that also need attention, but since I am not getting paid, this will be my sole voluntary contribution to the "tiger development effort." :) Bob [Event "FICS 2 12 game"] [Site "?"] [Date "1999.12.13"] [Round "?"] [White "chesspartner"] [WhiteElo "2295"] [Black "ceb"] [BlackElo "1922"] [Result "0-1"] 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. Bc4 e6 7. N1e2 Nd7 8. Nf4 Ngf6 9. Bb3 Bd6 10. c3 Qc7 11. Nxg6 hxg6 12. O-O O-O-O 13. Qf3 Rh7 14. Bg5 Rdh8 15. h3 Qa5 16. Bf4 Bxf4 17. Qxf4 g5 18. Qf3 g4 19. hxg4 Qg5 20. Rfb1 Nxg4 21. Bxe6 fxe6 22. Qf7 Qh6 23. Kf1 g6 24. Qxh7 Qxh7 25. b3 Qf7 26. Rb2 Ne3+ 27. Ke2 Nxg2 28. Rf1 Nf4+ 29. Kd1 Nd5 30. c4 Nc3+ 31. Kd2 Qf3 32. Rc2 Ne4+ 33. Nxe4 Qxe4 34. Kc1 Qxd4 35. Rd1 Qa1+ 36. Kd2 Qd4+ 37. Kc1 Qf4+ 38. Kb1 Rh2 39. Rcd2 Ne5 40. Rc2 Qe4 41. Rf1 Rh1 42. Rxh1 Qxh1+ 43. Kb2 Nd3+ 44. Kc3 Qf3 45. b4 Ne1+ 46. Kb2 Nxc2 47. Kxc2 Qxf2+ 48. Kc3 c5 49. bxc5 Qxc5 50. Kd3 Kd7 51. Kc3 Kd6 52. Kd3 b5 53. cxb5 Qxb5+ 54. Ke3 Qc4 55. a3 Ke5 56. Kf3 Qd4 57. a4 Qxa4 58. Ke3 Qa3+ 59. Kf2 Qd3 60. Ke1 Qc2 61. Kf1 Kf4 62. Ke1 Kf3 63. Kf1 Qf2# 0-1 I didn't look at the eentire game, but Crafty strongly disagrees with Nxg6 and then after that, even more strongly disagrees with O-O. Bob > >>Which is completely not surprising. I said several years ago that to attempt to >>write a program to blast to the top of the SSDF is a _totally_ different thing >>from trying to write a program to blast to the top of the FIDE rating list. >> >>The games are too different...
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.