Author: Mark Young
Date: 05:28:18 07/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2001 at 08:19:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 03, 2001 at 08:14:27, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>On July 03, 2001 at 07:47:57, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On July 03, 2001 at 07:01:35, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>> >>>>On July 03, 2001 at 05:47:22, Mark Young wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 03, 2001 at 04:37:17, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 03, 2001 at 03:33:58, Adolfo Bormida wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>According the games played, I have *only* the suspect that CT 14 maybe is more >>>>>>>strong against humans than against computer. Gambit Tiger 2 is ahead in the >>>>>>>Sweden List, but against hummans is better than Tiger?? >>>>>>>It is possible?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We can remember that Rebel Century is sure better against humans. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not know it. >>>>>>We know nothing about the question which program is best against humans at >>>>>>tournament time control thanks to Fide that does not let computers to be rated. >>>>>> >>>>>>I suspect that Fide may be one of the reasons of the good result of programs >>>>>>against humans(Humans are more motivated to win other humans and not to win >>>>>>computers because they know their games against computers are not included for >>>>>>the rating list) >>>>>> >>>>>>This problem can be solved only if the humans get money for winning or drawing >>>>>>against computers that is eqvivalent to the rating change that they could get >>>>>>from not losing aginst the computer in fair conditions. >>>>> >>>>>You can argue about the rating change, but they are playing this tournament for >>>>>money. A win, loss, or draw counts in the standings in the tournament and prize >>>>>money. Unless my information I have is incorrect. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>And I would add also the "ego" factor that in chess players, especially at that >>>>level, is quite high indeed. >>>>In that sense being beated by a "stupid machine" can be quite frustrating... >>> >>>I do not believe that they care about it. >>> >>>I understand that most of the opponents even did not buy tiger so it seems that >>>they do not care much about the result. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Are you sure ? >>I know quite well the psychology of the chess players and the inner struggle for >>the victory is always prevailing against the "vile money", because as I said the >>ego at those mastery level is pretty developed. >>So I believe that a lose game is always burning... and that is worst if it is a >>lose against a brainless robot. >>BTW How do you know if they didn't buy Tiger ? Did they swear this to you ? Just >>curious... > >I do not know but it is my impression based on the facts that I read and based >on the results. >I know that in one game tiger was out of book after 1.c3 and nobody tried to >play 1.c3 again. > >I understood that the player who played 1.c3 did not try to get tiger out of >book and it is simply his usual style and he only owns Fritz and not Tiger. I searched for games of his with 1.c3, could not find any. He may play it, but I am not sure that it is his usual style. I would not think 1.c3 is any top players usual style when playing the stronger players. Computers, weaker players, maybe for shock value from time to time, but usual style... I would like to see how many rated games he has with 1.c3. If you can find them, I would like to see how many. > >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.