Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 23:11:28 05/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 2001 at 19:36:46, Bertil Eklund wrote: >You know very well that the comments from the grandmasters and IMs are just a >joke, just look at the comments of the Odyssey tournament ( no harm intended, it >is interesting anyway) they look at one game and understand nothing but this is in fact the point where i would wish to begin a dialogue between chess players and freaks and programmers involved. HERE we have to begin discussions about the game ! WHY (the hell) is it so difficult for the (strong) chess players to differenciate quality and quantity ? because quality is not about results. and not even about ONE example game. quality is about an impression that gets clearer and clearer over a long period of time. here we should begin. taking the game. taking the comments of the chess player. taking the programmer. and discuss what really has happened. why? to make progress in computerchess. THIS is the most interesting part. the open discussion about the data, AFTER the game. >but people >that follows a 40 game match has a much better feeling of the abilities of a >program. I think Thorstens comments in general are much better then those >experts that looks on one or to games from a particular program. I agree with >Thorstens comments in general about the playing-style of the programs except for >Nimzo8, i am still in no way disapointed by whatever i have seen from nimzo 8 so far. here we disagree in fact. chessmaster8000 has disapointed me, and i have said so from the very first minute, always open to get convinced by convincing games, but those games never happened. >that has fooled him a lot (and he know it now I think) sorry. i am still thinking that nimzo8 is much better than what i have seen before. IMO you cannot measure it with a 40 game MATCH, you can only the the different quality IN THE GAMES (IMO). >Or just take the >revue of Tiger12 on the Rebel-site from Elvis, the shepherd of the >Chessbits-Schroeder-Forum (a strong chess-player and the excellent book-maker of >Shredder4), can anyone take this well-written revue seriously when he describes >the Tiger12 program as a very active and aggressive program when everyone that >has played some games with the program,compare it with the style of Genius, >Andersson or Petrosjan. maybe he knew tiger 11.2 ?! and mixed the 2 impressioins of the programs in his mind ? tiger 11.2 was a little bit in playing style like gambit-tiger1. >I think even mr Theron agrees that Tiger12 played a bit >boring chess. but petrosian fans liked this style. and if you ask them they will tell you: this is the strongest chess program ! this IS the problem that a pretosian fan will see the strongest chess program in a petrosian playing style program. and john nunn will believe a chess program is strong when it plays like him. we all, confronted with a mirror , believe what we see in the mirror is ON TOP :-))) because we overestimate ourselves :-)) >Yes today Gambit2 rocks, I fully agree!! The Tiger(s) are >fantastic, the positional play are still weak sometimes, so it is good to see >that mr Theron still can improve his program! > >In example there is some terrible weaknesses in the Rebel-programs, I guess you >know them very well as a "fair" chess-player, and if Ed worked a bit with them, >his program could compete with the best programs of today but instead he is >blaming me or anyone that critizise his program for being antagonistic or being >bought or whatever. non - sense. you began good, but your conclusion is IMO not very good. ed is not attacking people because they critisized his work. he attacks you and others (IMO) because he feels betrayed. i do understand this. > My hope was that the beta-testers should comment about the >weaknesses, so he could take part with them. to really work on making progress with a chess program, takes more than a beta tester. it is a work for years. and it is in general NOT about user interface or other shit bugs, its mainly about the most important thing: the strength that gets generated out of the quality. a weak tester will only look for the results. and measure quantity. this will not lead in a playing strength increase. cause it is not really a progress.
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.