Author: Mark Young
Date: 06:25:16 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 09:14:19, Chessfun wrote: >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?. Check with Eduard! Because his method is just a way to exploit the programs. And you seem to agree with it. no... > >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.