Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 22:59:02 06/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Fernando Villegas on June 25, 1998 at 20:39:25: >Hi Ed: >I have not seen your previous post about your anti-GM approach and maybe I am >going to repeat something already said by your or anybody else, but it is my >impression that althought the argumets by Amir sound very good, they are >radically flawed. Is not defending that a program can hold the game against a >Super GM as Anand. To defend is equal to let the rival do what he wants at the >rythm he wants. Sure, a normal master can make a mistake attacking, but not a >SGM as Anand. I believe that in a match between Anand and Rebel 10 you should >get, in a far higher level of course, what happens in a match between CSTAL and >me, an expert level player, 2100 Elo. Maybe CSTAl is objetively a lot weaker >than Hiarcs and Fritz 5, but against Hiarcs and Fritz 5 I have drawed many times >because thet play "correctly" and let me thinks in peace. Against CSTAL it has >been a lot more difficult to me because in a real game the ticking of the clock >makes the difference and so as much as you are faced with one challenge after >another, the moment comes or could come in which you have no any more the time >necesary to grasp the weaknesses of the move and then you will commit a greater >mistake. I believe attack is the motto. Never forgets this a game where time is >esential. Chess is not a math problem where you have all the time of the world >to find the correct solution. In chess there are sometimes many solutions and >scarce time to get them. Create confusion and havoc should be the rebel 10 >strategy, I think. Anyway, a lot of luck. Vaya con Dios >Fernando Hi Fernando, I basically am in agreement with you, but.... Do not underestimate the current top Pc chess programs when they play against strong human players and have to defend to a strong attack. They are so incredible good in that! They are masters in finding narrow escapes and the human has to play the attack very very accurate. And you know how it goes in chess, when an attack doesn't succeed it's kind of a golden rule you are going to lose or at least have to fight for a draw. So I am in agreement with Amir. Defending is one the strongest points of a good chess program, you even can call it a weapon! I know it is a strong point of Rebel. I have seen many strong human players to launch a good looking attack on Rebel. When they play the attack 100% accurate they surely will win the game but this 100% accurate is the problem for them. I have seen it so many times, they do not play the right move(s) in a horrible complicated position. The move(s) are good looking at first sight and may easily work against another human player but since the move is not 100% correct Rebel will escape. Then the wheel turns, Rebel releases its pieces and the position of the human collapse like a house of cards which makes him resign a few moves later. I have seen this pattern many many times at Aegon. Then after game as the human feels he missed a chance to win we analyze the game with the help of the computer and it often (but not always) turns out that we were able to come up with the right sequence of moves to get the computer on its knees. It's my opinion (mostly based on Aegon) that you can draw a general line. Defending is a VERY good weapon against chess players till 2400 ELO. Being in the 2400-2600 area defending is still a good but pretty risky option. It also strongly depends WHO you are playing against. When I would have the choice between a match Rebel-Karpov and a match Rebel-Seirawan I would surely go for Karpov. Karpov is the better chess player but Seirawan is the better computer killer IMO and I think for that reason Rebel would have better chances against Karpov. Then the > 2600 ELO area, it's my opinion that defending is NO OPTION at all. These guys are way to good. When they launch an attack they mostly will finish the job. All of the above in general is based on longer time controls as blitz games against GM's is another story. Rebel10's anti-GM is a "first try" to do something about this > 2600 problem. I have no idea how good the anti-GM software yet is. Time will tell but 2 things are very clear to me: #1. Playing against grandmasters you NEED such an anti-GM option. #2. Based on (#1) I will spent a lot of time the coming years to improve anti-GM. - Ed -
This page took 0.01 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.