Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:41:03 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 14:31:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 26, 2001 at 14:13:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > > >You aren't going to beat the GM by playing the same opening over and over, >and finding improvements in your play until you win. The GM will react too, >and _he_ will also change moves here and there to improve his position even >more, even though he won the previous 20 games in a row... > >that is an important distinction between how humans learn and the _ridiculously_ >primitive forms of learning we do in the chess engines. Exactly correct. 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.