Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:11:23 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 09:39:03, Chessfun wrote: >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. Not a thing. Only questions to be answered are these: 1. How many games did it take to find a "win" after 2. Na3?! ?? 2. Were any takebacks used? 3. Can it be repeated under controlled conditions, such as playing against a program on ICC where the program (and its analysis/etc) are remote and can not be seen? I would not claim that any or all of those were done. But I would suspect that at least question 1 is relevant and perhaps question 2.
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.