Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Check with Eduard

Author: Chessfun

Date: 06:14:19 06/26/01

Go up one level in this thread


On June 26, 2001 at 09:09:43, Mark Young wrote:

>On June 26, 2001 at 09:01:43, Chessfun wrote:
>
>>On June 26, 2001 at 08:47:39, Mark Young wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>The rules to me are simple.
>>Take program x use program x's opening book.
>>What is the point of programming a book line to allow "fools mate".
>>
>>I have seen no posted game where something like that has been done?.
>>or to quote you "as you guys have done." so please show me?.
>
>What are you talking about, we are talking about ways to exploit the computer
>program, my way is just easier, but it has the same result and standing.

Your way IMO is a simple waste of time.
Again I quote "as you guys have done." so please show me?.

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.