Author: Hasnain Mujtaba
Date: 20:04:46 12/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
"In all matches mentioned above, the thinking time was 40 moves in 2 hours, and afterwards 20 moves in 1 hour." On December 19, 1999 at 22:51:50, James Robertson wrote: >On December 19, 1999 at 22:16:50, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > >What was the time control? The results are hard to interpret unless we know >this.... > >James > > >>Hi Charles >> >>I don't know about any one-on-one Human vs Computer match-ups at chess variants, >>but in an experiment conducted in 1997, a team of two different chess computers >>(each with Elo > 2500) and an amateur human 'controller' (Elo 1900) defeated GM >>Arthur Yusupov (at the time #31 in the world with Elo 2640) in an 8 games match >>with a score of 5:3. The match was in "Shuffle Chess" -- a variant where you >>start the game with the back rank pieces arranged at random. >> >>The two chess programs ran in some k-best modes and the human controller would >>then pick what he thought were the best moves from the two k-best lists. >> >>The purpose of the experiment was to guage the combined strength of humans and >>computers. On their own, the ametuer and the computers will lose to GMs at chess >>variants because they don't have the tactical strength. But together, as this >>experiment shows, they can do quite well. >> >>You can read more about this experiment at >>(http://www.minet.uni-jena.de/www/fakultaet/iam/personen/CA-Chessd.html). >> >>Regards >>Hasnain. >> >>On December 19, 1999 at 19:36:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 19, 1999 at 18:30:23, Charles Unruh wrote: >>> >>>>It's still chess, the same elements exist time, space, force, and development. >>>>Still middlegame, opening, and endgame. Kasparov himself made a statement about >>>>how he would fair against other GM's in random chess, because he has been >>>>accused so much of winning because of opening preparation. He said that he >>>>would be the best because random chess will favor the better tactical player, >>>>and of course he claimed that the best tactical player was him :). Kramnik >>>>agreed with him though, it would be interesting to see at least 1 40/2 game in >>>>random chess against a GM. I have a bet going with an old bud from my tour in >>>>Vietnam. >>> >>> >>>This is a dangerous bet to make. Computer evaluations are _not_ tailored to >>>random chess positions. IE a weakness at g3 is something else entirely when >>>bishops are moved... I have looked at this a bit, but it is difficult to >>>handle. IE some of the 'wild' variants on servers ought to be easy for the >>>computer, but they aren't because the eval is so wrong...
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.