Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 13:02:56 08/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2000 at 09:11:05, Gordon Rattray wrote: >Congratulations to Shredder/Stefan on a great result! > >I'm a bit disappointed to see so much discussion involving words like "luck" and >"what if". The tournament was setup, it was played out, and the points were >added up... Shredder won fair and square. > >We can all consider how it may have been different if "this thing had been >different" or "that move hadn't been played" or "this move had been played"... >But that's the way it did happen. > >In order to win a game of chess, you do not have to be winning from move one and >never be in danger of losing. Chess is often about making mistakes, losing an >advantage, fighting back, taking advantage of your opponent's mistakes... As a >chess player myself, I discourage the concept of "I should have won". The only >players who *should* have won are those that *did* win. The final result is all >that matters. > >Despite saying this, I appreciate that we all like to look back and reflect on >possible improvements. Of course we do, as lots can be learned from looking at >what happened in this tournament. So, there's nothing wrong with "postmortem" >discussions with views to future improvements and changes, but let's not take >anything away from what has already happened... it was a great event and a >worthy result for the winner. > >Gordon It is often said that the chessplayer who wins is the one makes the next to the last mistake. No person nor program plays perfect chess. All make mistakes. For the less capable programs and humans, we make several 'mistakes' (not the best moves) in every game. A program can't win if the opponent doesn't make a mistake (as far as we know about the outcome of chess in general). The program that makes the next to last mistake is better than the program that made the last mistake. Mistakes have a significance and quality to them--the more significant mistakes lead to losses (or draws when a win should have happened). The strength of a program may be different in the 3 phases--opening, middlegame, endgame. However, the best program has the best combination of strengths among all three phases, such that it performs best overall. Maybe one program wins most games in the opening, due to better book or opening play. Maybe in the middle game, due to better tactics. If so, it may seldom need to have a good endgame (although at times it has to play an endgame and may not do so well), in order to perform best overall. Assume Program B makes a mistake and Program A gets the advantage, then Program A then makes a mistake and Program B wins. Thus Program A played better in the earlier part of the game (where B made a mistake)--but this isn't the bottom line for comparing programs. Program A didn't (later) see that its own mistake was a mistake, but B knew well enough how to handle A's mistake and make a win of it. A's mistake was worse than B's mistake. B is a better program than A. B beat A because it is a better program--pure and simple. In my opinion, if Program A loses to Program B, and the programmer of A says 'We had a winning position at move XX, but we didn't handle it properly', this is a confession that Program A, overall, is not as good as Program B, overall. The bottom line is scored in the result--not in how the program did at various positions throughout the game. Note--I am a 1900-rated player because even when I play openings like a 2000 player, I make some 1700-1800 level mistakes (or even worse at times!). My results--hence my rating--reflect my bottom line, overall strength. A Program is only as strong as its weakest point--and if it makes fatal mistakes, even in better positions, then it is not very strong (relatively compared to the winning opponent) overall (evidenced by that game, at least). If Shredder indeed battled its way out of poor or losing positions to hold the draw or even win, then it is indeed the best Program of WMCC--due to its overall strength. It never folded, even in poor or bad positions, to tumble into a loss. Instead, it found ways to improve its position under adverse circumstances. If this isn't outplaying your opponent, I don't know what is. In a horse race, to win easily is one thing (loose on the lead, no challengers, slow pace); to win by coming from far behind the field is a mark of greatness. It takes great strength to gain ground rapidly and close on one who has a big lead, surpassing them at the finish line. Shredder may be a great closer that can come from behind even under the most adverse circumstances. When the opponent of Shredder gets a lead (advantage) and doesn't have the strength to maintain it, Shredder coils its power in its hindlegs, kicks on the afterburner, and catches up! What a winner it is--Shredder! To suggest anything else is sour grapes. --Steve
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.