Author: John Warfield
Date: 14:15:42 12/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 1999 at 15:08:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Whenever the human wins then according to you he played anti computer chess, but when he loses then it is not anti-computer chess, as if this strategy works at the humans will? A human cannot determine every game to play or not to play anti computer chess, sometimes the book of the Program will steer the human into lines which favor the computer and are out of the humans control as in the Barburin rebel game. The truth is anti-computer chess only works sometimes, I have personally seen two games where crafty destroyed Roman divizi at 40/2 on chess net while roman was using this anti-computer strategy, so it doesn't always work as you suggest. Kasparov who knows Far more chess than all of your Grandmaster friends on ICC put together, said that "We now know that tactics plays a far more role in chess than previously thought". And this is exactly why Deepblue beat Kasparov, Hiarcs6 beat Hergott, Rebel Beat Lithuaian Team, And Schredder Drew Karpov. And all the other unmentioned computer vs human wins. Maybe you should start being more positive and be more optimistic about the Hobby which has brought you so much pleasure? To hear you talk Programs will never be better than 2300?? > >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.