Author: Albert Silver
Date: 20:12:46 04/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 1998 at 19:43:18, Fernando Villegas wrote:
One important question: What is the hardware you are using? I seem to
recall in a number of posts of yours that you operate with a 486. While
one could still argue that it should still be able to beat you, it will
make a significant difference if it is running on a fast Pentium for
example. Still, I would say that is is a complicated question. I still
think that the most impressive program out there, as far as a very
well-rounded player, is Hiarcs 6. This being said, it isn't necessarily
my favourite opponent. I probably learn more from playing it than
against any other program, but I usually alternate between it and
M-chess Pro, as the latter's play requires the utmost concentration if
one hopes to refute it's wild play.
Albert
>Hi everybody:
>Let me slip into the discussion about F5. I just finished a game against
>him -at 40 moves in 75 minutes- and as usual I got a draw after getting
>a dead position where Fritz begun to toy with his pieces, aimlessly. In
>my humble opinion, grounded in this experience of mine after many
>similar games, if Fritz 5 does not win you in the middle game and you
>are cautious in the ending, you are safe. Even you can win. If not, he
>will win anyway.
>The perceptions about Fritz depends, then, just of of how good player
>are you. If you are not strong enough, you will be smashed in the middle
>game in a pretty tactical manner and Fritz 5 will appears to your eyes
>as the strongest machine ever produced because how fast he gets the win.
>If you can hold the threats and reach an equal ending, then you are in
>conditions to test all the shortcomings of Fritz 5 and your evidence
>will be of a dumb program uncapable of doing anything with sense.
>More generally speaking, beyond my experience, the "real" status of
>Fritz 5 maybe could be stablished if just we keep in mind the following
>differences:
>
>a) There is a difference between to create a good, pretty and winning
>position and to be capable of get the kill with it.
>b) There is a difference between get the kill because of an awful
>mistake of the rival and to kill because you put the adversary against
>the wall.
>c) There is a difference between -yes, so a known thing- oppening,
>middle game and ending, for God sake.
>d) there is a difference between human kind of playing and those of
>machines.
>e) there is a difference between average human kind -like me- that play
>to get fun, computers that play because they were plugged and pros that
>looks for variations and nothing more.
>f) Elo, as any system of measurement, is only significant inside a
>determinate pool of data. If you are the best basketball player in a
>wheel-chair, that does not makes of you the equal of Jordan.
>
>So:
>a)to get the first position in SSDF is not necesarily contradictory with
>silly games against humans if these keep back Fritz and arrives to the
>dumb ending.
>b) An awful game played this or that time against this or that
>adversary, human or not, does not means neccesarily that all the games
>played by the program are awful and silly. The contrary is equally
>relative.
>c) to be useful for tactical analysis is not equal to be good for
>playing a game.
>d) to be useful for analysis does not neccesarily means that then it
>play awfully in real games.
>
>There are so many differents ways to make use of Fritz 5 as people here
>in CCC. So no wonder that at least we have two sides, one in favour and
>one against. No wonder, besides, the confussion about what is being
>discussed. Even more if there is a theory of conspiracy. But then, even
>if conspiracy does not exist, that does not means that all what is said
>by Thorsen is wrong.
>The usual: too many variables to shape a clear-cut fair opinion.
>Fernando
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.