Author: John Warfield
Date: 19:03:46 12/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 1999 at 21:08:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 23, 1999 at 17:15:42, John Warfield wrote: > >>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? > > >Confucious says "put brain in gear before putting mouth in motion." Then why don't you take his advice since you hold him in such esteem. I have >_clearly_ defined "anti-computer chess" _many_ times here. As have several >others. I _watched_ the Hiarcs versus Hergott match. He went for (mainly) >tactical type openings, very much like most IM players want to play. I don't >'change my definition' to fit the outcome. The style of play definitely >affects the outcome. For one such example, just watch "shutka" on FICS. Or >the players I have mentioned on ICC. > > > > >> 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. > >A good GM doesn't have that problem. He _only_ plays openings that lead to >locked positions. To avoid them often requires significant positional >concessions that the program had better understand before it dives into them. > > > > > 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. > >I"ve never said "It works every time." But it does work a lot of the time. >And what you don't know about Roman is that he often is trying something >_specific_ vs crafty, looking for a bug/hole in the eval. When he wants to >win, he is a real pain. When he is trying to isolate a problem, he can get >drubbed badly. > >> 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?? >> > >I already believe they are beyond 2300. I have said 2450 _many_ times. And I >have also said that I believe they will get better. But only slowly. Yes you have said this, but you started out with 2300, I will produce the post in RGGC if neccessary. It seems that instead of admitting you were wrong in the first place you keep slyly Projecting the computers rating upward, pretty soon you will be saying 2500, as you begin to see more and more how wrong you were. > > > >> >> >>> >>>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.