Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 15:33:41 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 15:13:27, Ed Schröder wrote: >On May 19, 2000 at 13:52:35, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On May 19, 2000 at 13:21:02, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On May 19, 2000 at 11:00:07, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >>> >>>>On May 19, 2000 at 10:46:36, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 19, 2000 at 10:37:52, Albert Silver wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 19, 2000 at 09:29:52, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Van der Wiel could give lessons on anti-computer strategy. Of course he is a >>>>>>VERY old hand at it, and probably the most experienced of all the players in the >>>>>>tournament. Made it look simple. >>>>>> >>>>>> Albert Silver >>>>> >>>>>True, and also true for Grooten and van Wely. Back to the old question: how >>>>>strong are today's programs? It depends on how the opponent plays against them: >>>>>in the van der Wiel, van Wely and Grooten way, or in the (foolish) style of van >>>>>den Doel and de Vreugt. >>>>> >>>>>Overall, Fritz scored very well, with 5 points out of 9 and almost a GM norm. By >>>>>the way, I think that Fritz running on a P300 would have lost and won the same >>>>>games. >>>>> >>>>>Enrique >>>> >>>>I've just come back and had a look at the game. Another effortless win by a >>>>human. Fritz simply had no idea what was going on. The old Levy dictum about >>>>doing nothing but doing it carefully was effective again... Yes, Enrique, the >>>>key question is just how strong are today's programs. >>>> >>>>I agree about Fritz's scoring well (5/9), but what if the other humans had >>>>played the slow and careful game, instead of seeking skirmish? Hmmm. All I >>>>know for sure is that Fritz is a great blitzer, but not a great tournamenent >>>>player, yet :) >>> >>>What about GM Jan Timman? He is a great player but famous for making >>>blunders in won positions. Computers have their own weaknesses. Still >>>they score very high TPR's these days. They do it in their own way and >>>we don't question the rating of Jan Timman do we? >>> >>>Just making a point... >>> >>>Ed >>> >>> >>>>*** Djordje >> >> >>Hello Ed, >> >>Yes, you made a point alright. You know, problem is, whenever I analyse games >>that comps played against highly rated humans, that I inevitably end up somewhat >>disappointed. The same happened with Rebel for instance. After a very nice >>game it would play a pale strategic game and lose easily... My problem arises >>whenever I compare my expectations based on blitz games and computers' >>performances against humans at tournament time controls. The other day it was >>another top program that I had play against an IM friend at G/60. I was so sure >>that the program would win, as it had done so in G/5 many times, that I wagered >>a bet (dinner, what else?) and lost. However, the loss was not what hurt, but >>the way it lost. No plan, no attack, no counterattack. Just waiting for >>slaughter. Like a lamb. So I had yet another moment of sobering up. >> >>Still I believe that you made a point :) > >And you made your point too. Let's see if we can agree on the following: > >Computers are often far away from understanding how to play chess as humans >do. They play chess in their own funny way and still are able to score in >the 2500-2600 area (and still climbing) which is amazing. > >Ed > > >>*** Djordje Agreed. Yes, they can score in the 2500-2600 range. And it _is_ amazing, having in mind all the gaps in their "knowledge" of the game. *** Djordje
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.