Author: Chessfun
Date: 04:54:16 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 07:47:38, Mark Young wrote: >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, every chess player makes mistakes, no one excluded....Must computers >never lose a game to be GM strength....the answer is no! To be GM strength you >must have results like a GM, and Tiger is doing this now, as other programs have >done in the past. > >Ignorance is bliss when it supports your point of view. I'm not sure that I'm arguing YET that computers are not GM strength from a results point of view. I am far from ignorant when it comes to knowing about playing computers and being close minded and not open to ideas IMO is far worse. Sarah.
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.