Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:20:17 08/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2000 at 17:44:38, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I guess based on your last message that you also know that it is the case for shredder4.16 that is the version from June 2000 but it does not prove that it 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.