Author: Mark Young
Date: 05:47:39 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 08:40:58, Chessfun wrote: >On June 26, 2001 at 08:09:58, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 26, 2001 at 07:14:55, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Now there are *rules* on how you can exploit the programs....I see. > >What are you talking about?. >Show me any quick mate against a pc, typically they are all out >of book not in book. Show me some program holes that allow remember the word you used, "fools mate". Easy, the program allows me to program book lines. The program allows this...yes. I can choose anyway I wish to exploit the program as you guys have done....Unless you are saying there are now rules on how we can exploit the program. >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.