Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:12:21 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 06:48:46, Martin Schubert wrote: >On June 26, 2001 at 06:44:44, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 26, 2001 at 06:38:30, Martin Schubert wrote: >> >>>On June 26, 2001 at 06:30:58, Mark Young wrote: >>> >>>>On June 26, 2001 at 06:23:07, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 26, 2001 at 05:15:56, Mark Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>>Let me tell you about some of my real life experiences with this. >>>>> >>>>>When Mat(h) (Belgian program that competed in Leiden) was first >>>>>publicly presented, an exhibition match was played vs about 34 >>>>>volunteers. >>>>> >>>>>It was quite well publisided so players up to 2250 ELO joined (this >>>>>is much for Belgium). >>>>> >>>>>In the games, most opponents were crushed. Although the program is >>>>>not very strong at all (look at the Leiden results), even the strongest >>>>>players lost without much chances, or had to content themselves with >>>>>a draw. >>>>> >>>>>There was one, at that time 1300 rated player, that did quite the >>>>>opposite. He crushed it. Rather easily even. (I knew this player and >>>>>had been watching the match closely) >>>>> >>>>>How come this 1300 did so well even though the 2200's had trouble? >>>>> >>>>>This player sometimes played on chess severs, and was familiar with >>>>>chessprograms, and had played them before. He knew where they were >>>>>weak. In the Mat(h) game he castled on opposite sides and stormed >>>>>Maths kingside. The program had no clue what was going on and lost. >>>>> >>>>>Most of the 1800-2200 players knew Fritz quite well. They used it to >>>>>look up games. They used it for analysis. They sometimes played in >>>>>sparring or friend mode. But they never played it seriously full- >>>>>strength. They had no idea how to beat the program. Most of them >>>>>played totally open postions. I saw nearly no closed manoeuvering >>>>>games. They were just playing like they played other humans. And it >>>>>didn't work. >>>> >>>>Is this what is happening with Chesstiger, the IMs and GMs are just Ignorant >>>>on how to cope with ChessTiger. >>>> >>>>I guess there is no way to prove that, so your safe if that is what you believe. >>> >>>Oh yes, there is a way to prove that. Just let someone play who is experienced >>>with playing computers. I know someone how offered to play against a computer >>>and he wanted to show he is better than a GM. But nobody was interested in such >>>a match. You know why? Because it's not PC. The only thing you can learn from >>>that is that computers are not that good as everyone tells. But that doesn't fit >>>in the "Computers have super-super-GM-strength"-hype. >>>Just look at some games posted here, how to beat programs with 2.Na3 for >>>example. >>>A few month ago Eduard asked to give him any opening and any program. He wanted >>>to beat that program in that opening. He did. Very soon. Do you think that would >>>be possible against a GM? >> >>Look at what you are saying. Yeah anyone can sit and find a win this way at home >>against one line of play. Yes it is easy to exploit the computer programs under >>those conditions.....SO WHAT! My grandma could do that and she is dead. >> >>The trick is being able to win under tournament conditions where you can not >>control the lines of play. >> > >It's not a problem of lines! It's a problem of understanding what is important >in anti-computer-chess comparing with what is important in usual chess. >Do you think 1. e4 c5 2. Na3 or 1. e4 c5 2. e5 is a problem of lines, you can't >get in tournaments? Of course you need ideas how to beat computers not only in >the sicilian. But it's impossible to put all these things into an opening book. > > You are wasting your breath. Some believe that (a) you can learn how to beat a program by doing it over and over, but that doesn't mean it isn't a GM player. They don't realize that they could play a GM under the same circumstances, over and over and _never_ win a single game. That is a big difference. And it shows that the programs have a huge problem, although some don't want to accept it. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>GCP
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.