Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 03:58:06 01/12/01
Question were collected from this forum. Happy reading. Ed -------------------------------- Q1] Realizing that it is position specific, do humans generally have an advantage in seeing drawn positions? [JvdW] Sometimes, yes, but computers will normally have a reasonable correct assessment too, so it is only a small advantage. [Q2] Does the computer's clear vision of short to moderate range tactics become an advantage in the sense of freeing up your thinking so as not to examine such variations? That is, do variations and plans arise that you might consider given a human opponent that you would otherwise avoid when playing a computer? [JvdW] Yes and yes to both questions in general, but often sharp calculation is also necessary for the human player and sometimes you spurn the best variation (as I did in game 4: Qb7xa7! instead of Qb7-e4) because it looks too complicated against a computer, and then it may become a disadvantage! [Q3] Do you think it important do prepare for a specific computer opponent or is it enough to be familiar with computer play in general? [JvdW] For me: enough to be familiar, unless you have access to the computer's opening book, then it becomes interesting to do specific preparation. [Q4] Do you believe a computer opponent can be pushed into a certain mode of play by strong players or is your frame of mind more, "I will play good moves and react appropriately as the computer opponent mis-reads the position"? [JvdW] The former. I always try to push the computer into a position it doesn't understand, but don't always succeed. [Q5] Do you prepare specific openings against a computer or enter the contest with more of a general plan? [JvdW] More of a general plan. Opening 'philosophy' is important, though. [Q6] Is it more advantageous for a human to play a computer in a match setup like this one vs Rebel when compared to facing a computer in a tournament? Or no difference? [JvdW] In a match it is easier to focus on typical computer play, but I am experienced in doing this, so for me it is not a great difference. [Q7] What other players do you believe would perform well against computers? [JvdW] Karpov, Kramnik, Seirawan, Spassky for instance if they want to make an effort. Their styles are already suitable by nature. [Q8] Ever consider writing a book about how computers play by annotating games and pointing out their shortcomings? [JvdW] Not really yet, but maybe in the future? [Q9] What is your most satisfying victory vs a computer and why? [JvdW] Against HIARCS, AEGON 1995, because it was leading the tournament with 5 out of 5 and I had to win in order to claim the tournament victory and also because my 'Winawer' strategy as Black became a complete success. Second favorite is the win over FRITZ in the Dutch championship because of all the fuss about FRITZ and it saved an otherwise dreadful tournament for me in a nice 'anti-computer' type of game. [Q10] What can you say about Rebel's play during the match? [JvdW] It avoided 'anti-computer' type of positions more often than other programs so far. Still it made quite a few mistakes (I have to add that I certainly made more!) and in the middle-game treatment there is a lot to be improved. I was impressed by REBEL's endgame technique, though. Looking back at the match I am convinced that a Van der Wiel "in form" should definitely come out victorious.
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.