Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:44:38 08/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2000 at 17:20:25, Marcus Kaestner wrote: >>>>I believe that the programmer of shredder knows exactly which versions of >>>>shredder you do not have. >>> >>>then believe... >>> >> >>You are quite possibly writing yourself into trouble you know, because if >>neither you nor Stefan are lying, then you obtained a copy of the latest version >>illegally. I haven't noticed you mention that you claimed Stefan had sent it to >>you, only that you had tested it. > >so ask yourself why he does not open a court-case. > >> >> >>>>>so if i do not have the stuff i must be a wizard to predict all the things >>>>>correctly. each year. >>>> >>>>You were lucky. >>> >>>yes, of course. as in the past tournaments i was also lucky. >>>and shredder also was lucky last year and this year two times. >>> >>>all only luck. >> >>Any prediction on the outcome of a 9 round Swiss, in which several players of >>similar strength are participating, involves a good deal of luck. Kudos to >>Stefan for winning the title, but it could easily have been otherwise. Look at >>the games. > >of course you need luck. >but if you have this luck again and again and again, there must be a pattern, >no? > >> >>As for Shredder's endgame play, I think it is at a higher level than its >>opponents. It didn't save its game against Rebel through luck. It's ability to >>save that game wasn't due to some magic 'swindle' algorithm, but due to superior >>knowledge that allowed it to create saving possibilities. Had Rebel had the > >that´s it what is called "to swindle". creating holes to escape if the opponent >makes not the correct move. Computers usually assume that the opponent will play the best move. Do you suggest that shredder has a special knowledge in bad positions that is based on the assumption that the opponent will go wrong? > >>same >>knowledge, it would have won, but it didn't (no offense, Ed). >>This is also how some GMs 'swindled' Junior in the endgame in Dortmund. No luck >>involved, they just did it better. > >i´ve never said that shredder was a lucky winner. i know his abilities very >well. he is the best defender of lost positions, but not the best endgameplayer >anymore. > >a short example (only for understanding): > >let play shredder versus rebel or tiger from the same lost position: >shredder will hold many of the games, tiger a few, rebel not one. > >let them play with a slightly better position: >rebel will win the most, tiger will defend the most, but will also have the most >draws while attacking. shredder is in the middle. > >let them play an equal position: >rebel will win the most, tiger will draw the most, shredder will have not as >many points as the others. > >that´s the difference. i hope you now understands better what i mean. > >marcus I guess that you know that it is the case for shredder4. I do not believe that you know if this is the case for shredder(london). 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.