Author: Martin Schubert
Date: 04:23:17 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 07:13:24, Chessfun wrote: >On June 26, 2001 at 06:54:41, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 26, 2001 at 06:51:17, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On June 26, 2001 at 06:31:33, Martin Schubert wrote: >>> >>>>On June 26, 2001 at 06:15:02, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 26, 2001 at 06:08:34, Martin Schubert wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 26, 2001 at 06:02:34, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 26, 2001 at 05:58:52, Martin Schubert wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 26, 2001 at 05:39:52, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On June 26, 2001 at 05:21:27, Martin Schubert wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On June 26, 2001 at 05:15:56, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On June 26, 2001 at 05:06:36, Martin Schubert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On June 26, 2001 at 04:53:05, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>ChessTiger has now produced 2 wins in a row and a draw against strong titled IM >>>>>>>>>>>>>players. It must be noted ChessTiger is doing this on hardware that is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>considered ultra fast PIII 866 256 MB Ram. Most people own hardware this good or >>>>>>>>>>>>>better. This is not a chess program running on thousands of dollars with of >>>>>>>>>>>>>equipment with 8 CPUs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>If ChessTiger continues playing as well as it is, the 2100 elo crowd or the No >>>>>>>>>>>>>way computers are GM crowd will have to come up with someway to explain this >>>>>>>>>>>>>performance. As I doubt it will change anyone’s mind even if ChessTiger wins >>>>>>>>>>>>>this tournament. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>The performance is easy to explain. Like in the tournaments last year with the >>>>>>>>>>>>participation of Fritz and Junior a lot of players don't know how to play >>>>>>>>>>>>against computers. There are some games which could be played by players with >>>>>>>>>>>>rating <2000 as well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I don’t think this that arguments passes the laugh test, most players’ trainee >>>>>>>>>>>with some kind of computer aid, chess bases, programs etc. They have too, to >>>>>>>>>>>compete in today’s chess tournaments. Programs have been around for many years, >>>>>>>>>>>and I would doubt this is any players first time seeing a chess computer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Playing against computers and playing against humans are two different >>>>>>>>>>disciplines. Maybe like 100meter and 400meter hurdles. If you practise mainly >>>>>>>>>>for one discipline you're not that good in the other one. >>>>>>>>>>Maybe you can take a look at Eduard Nemeth's games. He has no problem beating >>>>>>>>>>all of the programs. His rating is maybe 2100. After reading his articles I >>>>>>>>>>could beat Shredder 5 without much effort (my rating about 1900). >>>>>>>>>>Just look about the game Tiger played in round 3. You want to tell me that his >>>>>>>>>>opposite played like 2400? Like an IM? I think already the opening was a >>>>>>>>>>disaster. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Give us some analysis since you have looked at the game to back up your >>>>>>>>>argument. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I will take that challenge that you can beat a top chess program. And we will >>>>>>>>>make it a short 10 game match at blitz time controls or any time controls you >>>>>>>>>want. I have many years playing programs online, and you will find my opening >>>>>>>>>book does not have many holes in it like 2 Na3. So you will need to outplay it, >>>>>>>>>in the middle and endgame to win. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I didn't say that I'm experienced enough to beat a program in match. But it's a >>>>>>>>matter of training. I'm not interested in that. >>>>>>>>But ask Eduard Nemeth. I'm sure he can beat a top chess program in a 10 game >>>>>>>>match. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sorry I just took you at your word: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"After reading his articles I >>>>>>>could beat Shredder 5 without much effort (my rating about 1900)." >>>>>> >>>>>>Did I say that I can beat it every time? Did I say I can beat it with black? >>>>>>But I don't think I can beat an IM or GM even one time. >>>>> >>>>>And that is my exact point, it is easy to exploit the computer when you can >>>>>control what the computer plays, how it plays etc. Not exactly tournament >>>>>conditions is it!? >>>>> >>>>No, not exactly tournament conditions. >>>>But to repeat it again. You have to play different against computers than >>>>against humans. Do you agree? >>>>You have to keep positions closed. That's not easy. But you can practise how to >>>>play against computers. But that needs time. And the IM's and GM'S don't do this >>>>because they earn money for playing humans. So of course they're not that >>>>experienced in playing computers than in playing humans. >>>>If they practised like Eduard does they would win much more. But they don't. Of >>>>course they don't. >>> >>> >>>Nemeth's tactics of 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 from the last game could not help at >>>tournament time control >> >>That you for the analysis, thats what many here have been saying.... > > >It means nothing. Of course given different time controls programs >will choose different moves, the same way as a human does when calculating >a position. In the days of the Pentium 66 the same thing would have happened. >The difference is that todays blitz is equal to previous tournament controls. > >To simply say here is a move that given longer the program would have saved >itself is hogwash. Given more time also the human could have come up with a >different line of attack. > >Programs do still castle into kingside attacks, programs are still vulnerable >when taken out of book early especially on the kingside. Some are better at not >doing these things or not as vulnerable but the fact is they will still make >these mistakes at tournament controls. > >Sarah. > > >>> >>>Here is the proof >>> >>>At blitz tiger may play Ke6 but at tournament time control tiger is going to >>>play Kg8 and the sacrifice of nemeth is a practical mistake. >>> >>>Nemeth,E - Hiarcs 7.32,P >>>[D]r1bq1b1r/pp1ppkpp/2n5/7Q/3pn3/N6P/PPP2PP1/R1B1K1NR b KQ - 0 1 >>> >>>Analysis by Chess Tiger 14.0: >>> >>>7...Ke6 8.Ne2 Qa5+ >>> -+ (-3.64) Depth: 8 00:00:00 80kN >>>7...Ke6 8.Ne2 g6 9.Nf4+ Kf6 10.Nxg6 Qe8 11.Qf3+ Kxg6 12.Qg4+ Kf7 13.Qxe4 >>> -+ (-3.72) Depth: 8 00:00:00 127kN >>>7...Ke6 8.Ne2 g6 9.Qg4+ Ke5 10.f3 Nf6 11.Bf4+ Kd5 12.c4+ Kc5 13.Qg5+ d5 >>> -+ (-3.62) Depth: 9 00:00:01 333kN >>>7...Ke6 >>> -+ (-2.72) Depth: 10 00:00:06 1126kN >>>7...Ke6 8.Qg4+ Kd5 9.c4+ dxc3 10.bxc3 Qa5 11.Qf5+ e5 12.Qf7+ Kc5 13.Qc4+ Kd6 >>>14.Qd3+ Kc7 15.Qxe4 Bxa3 16.Bxa3 >>> -+ (-3.52) Depth: 10 00:00:08 1511kN >>>7...Ke6 8.Qg4+ Kd5 9.c4+ dxc3 10.bxc3 Qa5 11.Qf5+ e5 12.Qf7+ Kc5 13.Qc4+ Kd6 >>>14.Qd3+ >>> -+ (-3.52) Depth: 11 00:00:15 3072kN >>>7...Ke6 8.Qg4+ Kd5 9.c4+ dxc3 10.bxc3 Qa5 11.Bb2 Qa4 12.Rd1+ Kc5 13.Rd4 Nxd4 >>>14.Qxe4 Kd6 15.Qxd4+ Qxd4 >>> -+ (-2.80) Depth: 12 00:00:29 5992kN >>>7...Ke6 8.Qg4+ Kd5 9.c4+ dxc3 10.Qd1+ Ke6 11.Qg4+ Kf7 12.Qxe4 cxb2 13.Bxb2 e6 >>>14.Qf4+ Kg8 15.Nb5 Bb4+ 16.Bc3 >>> -+ (-2.32) Depth: 13 00:02:01 26695kN >>>7...Kg8 8.Qd5+ e6 9.Qxe4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Bxd2+ 11.Kxd2 d5 12.Qd3 e5 13.Ke1 a6 14.Ne2 >>>Nb4 15.Qd2 Qe7 >>> -+ (-2.60) Depth: 13 00:02:29 32011kN >>>7...Kg8 8.Qd5+ e6 9.Qxe4 Bb4+ 10.Kf1 d5 11.Qe2 e5 12.Bd2 Bxd2 13.Qxd2 Bf5 14.Nf3 >>>Be4 15.Ng5 Bf5 >>> -+ (-2.68) Depth: 14 00:02:50 35800kN >>>7...Kg8 8.Qd5+ e6 9.Qxe4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Bxd2+ 11.Kxd2 d5 12.Qf3 e5 13.Ke2 Be6 >>>14.Qb3 Qc7 15.Nb5 Qf7 16.Nd6 Qg6 >>> -+ (-2.62) Depth: 15 00:04:02 48690kN >>> >>>(Blass, Tel-Aviv 26.06.2001) >>> >>>Hiarcs and crafty can also see Kg8 at tournament time control but not at blitz. >>> >>>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.