Author: Chessfun
Date: 04:14:55 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 06:25:16, Mark Young wrote: >On June 26, 2001 at 00:17:21, Chessfun wrote: > >>On June 25, 2001 at 22:01:57, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On June 25, 2001 at 21:54:07, Mike S. wrote: >>> >>>>On June 25, 2001 at 18:15:41, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>The results are bogus anyway, I can sit at home and win games as he did....Let >>>>>me run the computer against Eduard....I bet the results would be much different. >>>>> >>>>>Why does he not play a 20 game match, the computer will learn what he is doing >>>>>and pick a different way of playing against 2.Na3 Then he is toast. >>>> >>>>What matters then, is the single game (each) with a brilliant win against the >>>>program, and not, if the learning feature may avoid repetition (or if some games >>>>may be lost beforehand). That's not the point, but that these games can happen >>>>at least once on each computer. I would be glad if I were capable of winning >>>>such games regularly (I have some, but very few old one's). >>>> >>>>Furthermore, why call the results bogus, unless you have evidence that these >>>>games aren't reproduceable or possible? That's not quite fair IMO. >>> >>>The point is we are talking about games under tournament conditions, not games >>>sitting at home at blitz times, with no controls. Anyone can sit, play with the >>>program, and produce games like this, but its not the same when you don't have >>>control of the screen, program, and the settings of the program. >> >> >>To me I see a different point. >>Try playing a GM 50 times and see how many you'll win. >>Forget the time controls for a second as IMO Eduard could easily >>repeat this at tournament controls as I feel I also could. >>Computers are known for being better at blitz than GM's simply log >>onto ICC and have a look. With a computer once you find the path to >>the win in most cases the path remains open. Simply play out of book >>asap if you win the computer in all liklihood will repeat it's same mistakes. >> >>Try that against a GM. > >You tell me a GM who is willing to be exploited like we can the computer >programs, and I might be able to produce a draw or a win also. > >Can I program holes in the human GMs book to let me FOOLS mate him. :) You can't "fools mate" any current program. Most program books are clearly good enough and most strong humans who play them play book lines to about 15 moves. >The point is sitting at home cooking up ways to exploit the computer is not what >I would call tournament conditions. The same cooking can be done and then played out under tournament conditions. >BTW: Eduard only posts his wins, and you don't know what his record would be >under a fair test playing the computers under fair match or tournament >conditions. Naturally, I would assume that in winning these games first you must play a bunch that don't pan out. But the same can be done at longer controls and once acheived it will repeat. Sarah.
This page took 0.01 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.