Author: Albert Silver
Date: 19:26:07 12/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 1999 at 22:03:46, John Warfield wrote:
>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,
Slyly as the years go by?
Albert Silver
> 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.