Author: blass uri
Date: 13:46:41 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 16:16:56, Stephen Ham wrote: >Dear Aaron, Jouni, Georg, Uri, Mogens, and Readers, > >Thank you for your continuing interest in our experiment. Let me just clarify a >few questions raised. > >1) No, I do not use a computer to generate my moves. I do have an old computer >at home with Hiarcs 3 on it, but I haven't played with it for years since it >causes my computer to crash (I'm too much of a computer dummy to understand why >that happens). Besides, that violates the whole point of this experiment. One of >the things we want to determine is whether a very fast computer with the >srongest chess software could compete against humans at the 2500+ ICCF level in >Corr. Chess. For example, one of the fears we CC players have is that a weak CC >player could simply buy technology that would make him/her competitive even >against stronger than normal CC players. I think we now see that it is entirely >possible that this could happen, although I don't think the chess engines show >any ability to actually defeat a strong human yet, unless the human pushes too >hard to win. As such, I don't think the technology yet exists where the computer >could do any better than break even on the score of a CC tourney. But, what we >do see is that the chess engines are difficult to defeat quickly. Given the deep >searches allowed (now over 23 ply in some cases), they are certainly very >strong. Finally, this experiment only works if I play against the machine as I >would against any human. After all, we CC players are blind to whether we are >playing against a human or a computer aided human or a computer alone. > >2) Yes, I am allowed to use databases and books, as are all other CC players. I >have an old Chess Assistant at home, but didn't use it for this match. You will >see in my notes that I sometimes referred to the ChessLabs database. I did this >merely for commentary purposes, since I never used that database for any ideas. >Finally, you can tell by my commentary that I have some unique (shall we say, >highly subjective?) notions about openings, so databases really have no >influence on my opening ideas. In short, I have some strong opinions about >certain opening lines; these opinions remain until convinced otherwise > >3) Finally, yes Jouni, I may be too optimistic about my assessments of the >positions. Thank you, Aaron, for agreeing with my assessments. As you can see, >both Jouni and Aaron have diferences of opinion about these assessments. Being >human, my assessments are subjective, although I try very hard to maintain >objectivity. Thus we'll only find out who is correct as the games progress. >However, Ham-Nimzo 7.32, which Nimzo 7.32 once thought was highly favorable for >itself, has now been downgraded by the chess engine to 0.00 pawns on its last >move. Soon, I expect it to admit that I have a clear advantage as I've been >claiming all along. Something similar was seen in Ham-Fritz 6a too. I know from experience with chess programs that if the score is getting down there is more chances that it will continue to get down and not to go up. I did not do statistics about it but I believe that I am right. > >I've been away from the chess board since 5/11 since I had relatives visiting >until today (5/16), so I'll start updating my moves and commentary within 24 >hours. > >Once this experiment finishes, I think the next step will be to have a computer >aided human play 4 games versus a strong CC master who plays without a computer >move generator. We are open to suggestions regarding how to do this. Thanks >again for your continuing interest. > >Sincerely, > >Stephen Ham I think that if the human who help the computer is not a bad player and have experience with computers and also takes the challange seriously then the team of human and computer will probably win. Uri
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.