Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:10:43 04/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 2001 at 01:08:52, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 16, 2001 at 19:20:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 16, 2001 at 16:24:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 16, 2001 at 14:58:08, Chris Taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On April 16, 2001 at 14:14:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 16, 2001 at 13:21:21, Chris Taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Let the single chip programs play. If confidence is so high that they are not >>>>>>good enough, then fine. They are swept aside! But at least they have had their >>>>>>chance! Ed has got a good program, so Does Christophe. Not to mention a score >>>>>>of other programs, that given the chance to play, will at least be there! To >>>>>>exclude them from the start of the race, is strange. Unless of course it has >>>>>>all been decided. Hows' that for a selective search? >>>>>>If the likes of Rebel Century or The Tigers, fail to qualify, at least you will >>>>>>have the "Strongest" to go on and play Kramnik. And the people who say they were >>>>>>not strong enough, will be able to say "Told you so" If one of the single chip >>>>>>programs does win through, it will be because they had the opportunity >>>>>>to take part. >>>>>> >>>>>>Chris Taylor >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I totally disagree. There is exactly _one_ program that should be playing >>>>>Kramnik. Shredder. Shredder has won all of the recent computer chess >>>>>tournaments. It is the current world champion. There is _absolutely_ no >>>>>reason to suggest that a playoff for the right to play Kramnik is needed. In >>>>>fact, the suggestion is really insulting to SMK and Shredder. If a program >>>>>didn't participate in the last WMCCC event, then I conclude that Shredder is >>>>>better and the author was afraid to participate and lose. And by doing that, >>>>>he gave up the opportunity to take part in this match. >>>>> >>>>>I don't understand why there is _any_ sort of playoff under discussion, other >>>>>than it is politically/marketing related. yes a newer program might be a bit >>>>>better than the older Shredder that won the last WMCCC. But the new Shredder >>>>>could well be better than that. closed-door back room tournaments are _not_ >>>>>the way to handle this. >>>>> >>>>>The idea is embarassing, to say the least. When we won the 1983 WCCC event, >>>>>nobody questioned who should play David Levy that year. The same logic should >>>>>apply now, and SMK/Shredder should play, whether he uses a 486/33 or an 8-way >>>>>xeon/900. >>>>> >>>>>Seems that commercial computer chess companies are just as bloodthirsty now as >>>>>they were 20 years ago. And have just as few principles now as then. >>>> >>>>My only concern was the exclusion of certain programs, simply because they limp >>>>on one leg? >>>> >>>>I agree with you, that Shredder is World Champ, and should shoot for Kramnik! >>>>Since it appears that this will not happen? Sadly, a tounament will be played, >>>>the deed is done. But only for the exclusive few? To all the rest, not even a >>>>look in. Strange how Shredder can be let down, as well? >>>> >>>>Just me 10 penneth >>>> >>>>Chris Taylor >>> >>> >>>Just goes to show that the world isn't always fair. :( I generally try >>>to remember such things, and at some point, the "other side" will need some >>>help. But not from me. I can't believe any of this mess is happening. I >>>would hope the _authors_ of the programs would do the right thing themselves >>>and simply say "my program won't participate, this is a right earned by >>>Shredder and it is Shredder or nothing..." >> >>Of course publicity is very good for the program playing Kramnik: >>"it played kramnik so it gotta be good". >> >>But when Kasparov left FIDE i remember fide organized a match >>for the world championship between Timman and Karpov. >> >>Timman says now: "this was a big joke match, i didn't have >>a single chance and that was already clear long before the match >>preparations had even started". >> >>Kramnik would even win blindfolded from a passive program like shredder. >>Setting it to more aggressive parameters is not going to help either as >>Kramnik has a very positional style, which compared to the computerish >>style of Kasparov, is also from psychical viewpoint a big pro for Kramnik. >> >>Shredder won all its world titles because programs make so easy positional >>mistakes either in opening or endgame. >> >>For the same reason as shredder has won its world titles i win with my >>poor 2281 regurarly still from programs. Amazing but true i have a 100% >>score in games of 2 hours and less. > >Do you think that you can beat Crafty convincingly on ICC in a match of 6 games >at time control of 120 0 or 80 60 that is more similiar to tournament time >control(80 60 means that you have exactly 2 hours for 40 moves)? > >If you think that you can do it then maybe programmers can offer you money for >playing a match against their program. >When there is no evidence for the fact that you get 100% against programs at 2 >hours or slower time control programmers have nothing to earn from a match >against you even if they win the match because everybody expect them to win. >If you beat Crafty (4.5-1.5 is enough and you do not need 6-0) at tournament >time control then programmers may I play my worst games on icc always. at icc i play the same level as i play blindfolded. Like i'm in blitz only rated 2500+ now or so. Coming saturday there is a big 5 0 blitz event OTB. The only sure zero i get is against Vaganian (2641). At the board 40 in 2 i definitely am going to beat crafty in a match, but remember that on average 3 dudes chat with me when i'm at icc and that i also answer email during my blitzing there. So the answer is OTB definitely i beat programs in a match I would expect a few draws and the other games the program to lose. Usually i go for a draw against a program. After a move or 20 then usually a prog is blowing its winning chances and i go searching for a win. For example i expected to lose that game against tiger: Move Diepeveen RebelRex ---- ---------------- ---------------- 1. e4 (0:00) e6 (0:00) 2. d4 (0:03) b6 (0:00) 3. Nc3 (1:33) d5 (0:20) 4. e5 (0:53) c5 (0:21) 5. Nf3 (0:09) Nc6 (0:15) 6. Bb5 (0:05) Bd7 (0:14) 7. Bxc6 (0:10) Bxc6 (0:03) 8. O-O (0:02) Ne7 (0:24) 9. Bg5 (0:07) h6 (0:20) 10. Bxe7 (0:08) Bxe7 (0:16) 11. Ne2 (0:01) O-O (0:44) 12. c3 (0:03) Qd7 (0:18) 13. Re1 (0:06) Ba4 (0:10) 14. Qd2 (0:14) Bb5 (0:03) 15. Rac1 (0:12) Rab8 (0:16) 16. h3 (0:04) Rfc8 (0:21) 17. Nf4 (0:12) cxd4 (0:46) 18. Nxd4 (0:39) Bc4 (0:18) 19. b3 (0:08) Ba6 (1:22) 20. g3 (0:02) Ba3 (0:15) 21. Rb1 (0:05) Qc7 (0:15) 22. Re3 (1:15) Be7 (0:00) 23. h4 (0:03) Bc5 (0:16) 24. b4 (0:25) Bf8 (0:15) 25. Nfe2 (0:28) Bc4 (0:19) 26. f4 (0:08) Ra8 (0:13) 27. a4 (0:15) a5 (0:21) 28. b5 (0:06) Qd7 (0:21) 29. Nc6 (0:19) Bc5 (0:26) 30. Ned4 (0:04) Qc7 (0:12) 31. Kh2 (0:33) Qb7 (0:15) But when this position came at the board of course white is bigtime won here, and then i went on to find a win. regrettably i put my king on h1 trying to win it. Best was probably to attack black and giving up a4 b5 by doing that, but that's how i play. Scared for tactics of the computer and when i couldn't avoid tactics i chose the wrong time to open the position. note that there is 1 thing which i know which most GMs still do not learn. When i was ready to crush tiger on the kingside, then tiger very smartly put its rook on the C files and its queen not too bad. At the moment you can win from programs they are very dangerous! Harder it is when i do not know which program i play. That's of course not an issue here. I know weaknesses of all programs, let's not forget that. > have something to earn from playing against >you if they win the match. If you are willing to let me play for money under the same conditions as the GMs, i would be honored and would take the challenge! >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.