Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:08:40 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!): > >* GK's superior positional play gave him the advantage in four of the games > >* DB achieved the advantage in 2 of the games > >* GK converted 1 game in which he had the advantage > >* DB converted both the games in which it had the advantage > >From this, I draw a conclusion (in computer chess, if one wishes to draw >conclusions, one often has to base them on flimsy evidence). > >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. > >However, it's not good enough to beat them in the comfort of one's home. 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 > >* 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. > >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? did you watch the games? He didn't play anti-computer chess by any measure you would use... That is a _very_ common mistake. Even the GMs vs Rebel are not doing that yet... > >And why did GM Ruslan Scherbakov lose to Rebel Century? > >And why did the computers beat the humans overall at the last Aegon tournament >(1997)? > >-g Maybe there were more computers than GMs?
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.