Author: Chessfun
Date: 06:39:03 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 09:25:16, Mark Young wrote: >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... There is nothing wrong with what Eduard did. He used standard opening books. That isn't the same as making a losing book line. He takes the PC quickly out of book so what's wrong with that?. 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.