Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:53:57 06/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2001 at 14:36:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 05, 2001 at 12:51:19, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 05, 2001 at 11:24:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 04, 2001 at 23:16:07, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On June 04, 2001 at 22:37:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 04, 2001 at 11:08:11, Mark Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 04, 2001 at 10:34:36, Slater Wold wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>This is the annotated game by Petr. Look like Mark was correct, 10...Bxf3 was >>>>>>>the correct move as well as 10...Be6 or 10...Bh5. Shredder was lost, bottom >>>>>>>line. >>>>>> >>>>>>I can't be wrong all the time:) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I doubt that _one_ move lost the game. It was the _group_ of bad moves that >>>>>made it hopeless.. Against a good GM you can't toss a tempi here, a tempi >>>>>there, and expect to do anything but get tossed overboard yourself. :) >>>>> >>>>>Of course, the computers are all super-GM players, so this discussion really >>>>>is _not_ happening. :) >>>> >>>>Who said "all" computers are super-GM players. :) >>>> >>>>The only computers that "could" try and claim that they are Super-GM Players are >>>>Deep Blue, and Deep Junior. We will have to wait and see what Fritz 7 can do. >>>> >>>>Many programs are GM strength(> 2500 elo), but Super-GM...I don't think so >>>>either. >>> >>>"many"??? Shredder has beaten them all in the last couple of major events. >>>Do you think _it_ is a >2500 player after looking at the above game? >> >>You cannot decide about the rating of a player based on one game. >>The fact that Shredder beated other programs does not prove that it is better >>than them. >> >>This kind of game convince me to guess that Shredder beated other programs in >>tournaments mainly because of better opening preperation(better opening >>preperation is not about getting better position out of book but about not >>getting positions when shredder does mistakes like Bg4-c8). >>> >>>I'm not going to argue the point as it is a pretty hopeless thing to do. But >>>so long as computers play like the above, I don't think any reasonable human >>>will ever say "that is a >2500 player." >> >>They do not play like this every game and it is possible to get more than >>2500 with some weak games. > >I have no idea how many good GM players you personally know. I happen to know >several. And I watch them wreck hell on computers all the time. Mine included. >Mine offers them some problems that most others don't, but that only makes mine >_different_ and not necessarily better or worse against humans. I have seen >Roman shred every program on ICC at times. 4-5-6 blitz games in a row once he >finds a weakness. Most people simply disconnect after he gets into a rut like >that. > >GMs _will_ find the weakest link in the program's skills. And they _will_ >exploit it regularly. A program might produce a good result or two at first, >due to "computer shock" but once the humans take notice, look out. Exploiting a weakness regularly may be possible against an automatic program on ICC but it is not the way things work in tournament games when the programmer can change the program between games. 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.