Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 09:40:06 05/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2001 at 09:54:18, Aaron Tay wrote: >On May 12, 2001 at 09:22:13, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>On May 12, 2001 at 04:03:14, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>On May 11, 2001 at 22:23:28, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>Even If Kramnik decides not to practice against the latest version of Fritz 7, >>>>his chances of winning is about 65%, but if he still wants to practice against >>>>Fritz 7, his chances will increase to almost 85%. >>> >>>Giving Fritz a 15% chance of winning strikes me as generous! >>> >>>I'd go for about 2%. >>> >>>-g >>> >>>>Pichard. >> >>This is in my opinion complete speculation, last time we got a rating >>performance from DJ6 against humans it was 2703 (on slower hardware and weaker >>program) so if we assume that this time on stronger hardware, and a stronger >>engine, keep in mind that DF7 beat DJ7 which was an improvement over DJ6, DF7 >>is rated 2750 or more then the numbers you come up with makes no sense at all, >>and we should remember that all the top players of today owns atleast a copy of >>the above mentioned programs and then some. > >Top GMs own every copy of the top chess programs? Maybe,maybe not.Some GMS i >think, might even practice against Fritz only thinking it's the same as Junior >or anyother program. Even if they do, they probably use it more as a aid to >analysis, blunder checks and stuff, rather than viewing the program as a >opponent to beat unlike rival Human GMs. Why would they borther, except for the >rare one off exhbitition matches? So the 2703 rating you use is probably >over-rated once a GM treats the program as a serious opponent. The 2703 rating i was referring to was actual rating from practical play against very strong humans. And u ask why GM's should bother owning and playing top programs like a serious opponent? well as technology progresses and programs get stronger more and more money are to be made from these events, cpu v human, and then they would need to keep up with the progress of todays programs so athey will not get left behind for another 10-15 years where all programs will beat the top GM's as a means to amuse themselves :-) (just kiddin') > >>If we assume the rating of 2750 is >>about right then it would be the actual playing strenght, then there is the >>matter of perfect endgame which, > >This makes no sense. the 2750 if correct covers every aspect of the game, why >the mention of perfect endgame? Because if they go into an endgame where 3-4-5 men tb's are to be used the cpu have the advantage. Actual playing strenght is where the program makes the move, which is not the case when the program reaches an endgame where it reads from the endgame tables. > > >>last time i checked, is a privilege reserved >>for computers only, > >The last time i checked, only 3-4-5 and some almost useless 6 pieces tbs are >available. > >>also the antihuman play is almost by definition implemented >>in all of todays programs, > >What is the definition of "anti-human play"? Is there something similar everyone >does to their program that I can point to and say there is "anti-human >features". Getting the position open? antihuman play in my would be avoiding anticomputer play :-) and almost all programs today have that in their code or in the opening book, the way i understand it. > > > >all this taken into account makes the match, to me, >>very open indeed. > >>Computers never have a bad day, they don't sweat under pressure, they don't >care about money, they haave no ego > >This I agree with. This has always being the main strenght of computers. > >>and they play the board NOT the man!! > >Well they definitely play the man, if we are going to talk about anti-human play >plus preparation against Kramnik...;) The program's never play the man(i got the ;) ) they are not aware that they are progammed to aviod anti computer play :-) Regards Jonas
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.