Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:13:20 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 12:12:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I doubt if they never win a single game against the GM. The difference is that the program is available to play every time they want when the GM is not available to play 24 hours in a day so of course humans can play more against a program and not against a GM. I know about an 2100 and 2000 players who beated GM's at tournament time control so it is not impossible. Uri
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.