Author: Albert Silver
Date: 07:56:40 12/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 1999 at 08:04:38, Graham Laight wrote:
>On December 23, 1999 at 07:08:38, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>>A lot of GMs strongly criticised much of DB's play against GK - often using
>>>phrases like "that move was truly ugly", thus implying that to be a good move, a
>>>move has to "look attractive" - but in the end DB came away with the points.
>>
>>Highly debatable. The reason DB didn't convince GMs of being superior, is
>>because it was inferior in most games. For whatever reasons Kasparov was not
>>able to convert these positions, but the inferior positions were due to inferior
>>positional play.
>
>Like everyone else, I agree that 6 games under conditions that favoured the
>computer (although Gary was so confident that he did agree to the terms) does
>not make a strong case. Having said that, look what you have effectively just
>said (with a bit extra added by myself for good measure!):
A lot of extra added. That is called jumping ot conclusions.
>
>* GK's superior positional play gave him the advantage in four of the games
I don't understand these numbers. When did I say how many?
>* DB achieved the advantage in 2 of the games
It only achieved an advantage in the last game as a result of the opening.
>* GK converted 1 game in which he had the advantage
This is correct.
>
>* DB converted both the games in which it had the advantage
I would be fascinated to hear about this advantage it converted in the second
game.
>
>From this, I draw a conclusion (in computer chess, if one wishes to draw
>conclusions, one often has to base them on flimsy evidence).
If the evidence is flimsy, so are the conclusions drawn from it. No offence.
>The conclusion is that positional advantage is not necessarily the most
>important factor in determining who will win a chess game.
>
>Albert also stated that he is able to beat all the chess programs he possesses -
>which I think includes the new Rebel Tiger.
Rebel Tiger? Don't have it.
>
>However, it's not good enough to beat them in the comfort of one's home.
Really? I don't think that would make any difference. I wouldn't beat a GM in
the comfort of my house either.
>If he
>played them under competitive conditions, some extra considerations would come
>into play:
>
>* Some of the evaluation factors would be changed, so that he may not be able to
>predict their moves so accurately
Predict? I honestly don't understand what you mean by this.
>
>* The whole thing, from opening books to evaluation factors could be tuned to
>produce an optimum game against HIM.
>
>This is the reality that GK faced against DB in May '97.
What is your point? I never said I was unbeatable, not even that I had a
positive score against the damn things. :-) Only that I could NEVER have scored
a single point against 2700 human player. Ever.
>
>If anti-computer chess is alive and well, why did IM Dan Hergot lose to Hiarcs
>in early '97 - to what is now an old version of Hiarcs on old hardware?
He didn't play anti-computer chess.
>
>And why did GM Ruslan Scherbakov lose to Rebel Century?
>
He didn't play anti-computer chess either. Furthermore, I never said a computer
could never beat a GM. That would be completely wrong. I only said they are not
GMs IMO.
>And why did the computers beat the humans overall at the last Aegon tournament
>(1997)?
Were the humans all GMs overall?
Albert Silver
>
>-g
This page took 0.01 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.