Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:59:52 04/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2001 at 12:21:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. 100% score against programs? Even in 1997 it was hard to get 100% against chess programs. I know that GM yona kossasvily was the only player who got 6 out of 6 in the humans against machines in 1997. It was in holland and Rebel missed a draw when better hardware could help it. I read that GM yona kossasvily prepared for this tournament by training with chess programs. The same GM lost against Fritz6 in the israeli league. He played better in 1997 but I think he is still not worse than you. > >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. I do not buy this excuse. Karpov lost a game against 1.e4 a6 GM abir har aven plays in correspondence games the strange opening 1.e4 c6 2.d4 g6. you can get sligtly inferior position and get the opponent out of book. I believe that players who are more than 50 elo better than you have other advantages otherwise you could also play the c6,g6 against them. > >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. It proves nothing. He was simply lucky to catch Junior in a position that Junior did not know what to do. Analysis proved that Junior could play a different move earlier if you gave it more time or less time and I believe that Junior could avoid going to the position that it did not understand after a different move. 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.