Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:21:10 04/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2001 at 17:07:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 08, 2001 at 16:38:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 07, 2001 at 13:49:52, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>Hell i can even beat it in 15 0 easily as it has too >>little positional knowledge. > >I do not believe that you can beat it in 15 0 easily. >You may do it in one game but I guess that you are going to lose in a match. You do not believe it but so far i have still a 100% score against programs. How much stronger does a human who externally plays around 2350 play against a computer as a 2500 rated human who btw i beat usually in blitz easily too as my tactics are better as average. My problem is simple to define in chess. My own problem is that my openings sucks compared to 2500 rated persons. Their openings preparement is hell better. Whether i beat it in a match, and i'm around 2280FIDE rated, or not this is not the key point. I think i would, but we can argue about that for a long period of time about that and that's what i want to avoid. The key point is that Tiger has a few weaknesses which are so incredible losing against strong players AS SOON AS THEY REALIZE THE WEAKNESS, that tiger will forever lose against them. Now the interesting thing is of course that grandmasters do not realize the weakness of those programs. A cool example is blitz. At 21 april it's again that far. I always reach the finals. Most GMs and IMs i beat there, except some dutch GMs and Vaganian. I do not beat the dutch GMs as they invest loads of time in the opening. Good examples are GMs like Nijboer who simply invest 3 minutes just in opening against me, to get a simplistic won position and then kill me. So somehow they have an 'opponent modelling' which is enough to beat me easily if they know how i play. Exactly that is what they lack when playing programs. Some have heart programs are bad in endgames, so they get to a complex endgame where the program is a pawn up with GM some compensation, but the program has only forced moves as all other moves lose tactical. Then after the game the GM weirdly doesn't even ask: "Why did it play so well in endgame?". Even today most GMs hardly know the weaknesses of the computer. Add to that that some GMs are incredible weak tactical and that they always give the program easy to play positions somehow. But now assume the opposite. If we talk about a SERIOUS match strong GM versus computer, where the GM is someone who usually doesn't blunder away pieces (like v/d Wiel is doing last year, he can't even find a team nowadays to play for in masterclass i fear for him unless he's at board 10 or so, so he won't play me there next season as i'm around board 3 to 5 or so). SUPPOSE the GM knows the weaknesses of the computer and the strong points of it, how would the GM in question play then? Ok now even worse. Assume we have a GM now whose style is very positional and who is tactical absolute real strong. Apart from Berlin defense his opening isn't weak (berlin defense is really stupid to play against a computer if you want to win from it, as you give it for free a majority without tough play for white to advance). What is your prediction then? >Humans had problem to beat chess programs in the Israeli league in >2 hours/40+1 hour/game and got clearly less than 50% and I do not believe that >you are a better player than the average of the humans who played in the israeli >league. See above, this argument is completely irrelevant and can even be refuted bigtime. Junior joined top tournament in germany. the worst player of the tournament who was kicked butt by all GMs there, this worst player of that top tournament completely annihilated junior. >The teams had the right to choose the humans to play against the chess programs >so I do not buy the excuse that these humans did not know how to play against >chess programs. The team leader is definitely not a computer expert. Most likely it is not even a strong chessplayer but a bit older man who asks a few players whether they mind playing the computer. that's completely different as what you try to present here. The average team leader is an old man who doesn't even own a computer, and if i look in dutch competition (and dutch are known for being awake) then the average board occupation is everything but creative. Usually very predictable. Very important to realize is that most players that in israeli league played against the computer also didn't play much against computers before (with a few exceptions perhaps). Compare the results of GMs who played quite some games against computers verus the results of GMs who played against a computer for the first time in a 40 in 2 game. You'll see a very amazing difference in score in favour of experienced GMs. >I also do not believe that the programs in the israeli league had more >knowledge than chess tiger. chess tiger is the passive brother of gambit tiger. passive programs like shredder, chesstiger are of course nice snacks for me at any time of the day! Fritz is tougher, so are crafty and ferret. >Uri Vincent
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.