Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:29:25 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 13:55:50, Chessfun wrote: >On June 26, 2001 at 13:11:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > > >Definately all valid points as are; >1. How many games would it take to find a "win" v a GM using 2. Na3!? I do not know The only way to know is to try. You will probably have to pay the GM a lot of money to know because she or he is not going to agree to play for nothing. > >2. If he let you have any takebacks could you still win any?. I believe that if he or she lets you enough takeback you can win. It is not impossible to beat GM's and 2.Na3 is not so bad that it is impossible to beat GM's after it. > >3. If you managed a win with 50 takebacks v a GM could that be repeated :-) It also cannot be repeated against a chess program if it remembers the game and has learning by position or if it is not deterministic. 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.