Author: Aaron Tay
Date: 10:34:40 05/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2001 at 12:40:06, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >On May 12, 2001 at 09:54:18, Aaron Tay wrote: > >>On May 12, 2001 at 09:22:13, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >> >>>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. How many games was that? How many of those games do you think, the GM was really prepared? How many serious [with something at stake] long time control games does a average GM play against a computer per year? The Gms are just starting to learn...So you are wrong to think that the 2703 rating incorporates anti-computer play by GM..For those who really borther, just think back about how deep JUnior got crushed by Kramnik..You think Fritz will do better even with better hardware? Fritz might be better at beating fellow computers now..but i doubt it says a thing about how it will handle Kramnik.. >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, Perhaps, but for now, with FIDE banning serious computer participation in normal chess tournaments, the average GM wouldn't borther. Perhaps only the top 10 super GMs i.e the BIG names may consider preparing for one-off Man versus computer matches..But even for them, those are rare. Exhibition matches may be great, but unless the cash prize is extremely huge, the incentive for preparation is less, compared to say FIDE rated tournaments where GMs prefer to spend their energy and time to win elo points to break into the super GM levels to acquire inivitations to big tournament. >>>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, >>2 >>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. Yes. I know that. But my question stands, the rating you use already takes into the account the use of tbs in all ways..So your addtional remark about perfect endgames is pointless. >>>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. How? >> >> >>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 :-) Not sure what you mean by "aware" >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.