Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 04:36:26 02/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 03:23:40, Ed Schröder wrote: >When reorganizing my mailboxes I came across and old posting of 2000, here is: > >========================================================================== >Posted by Enrique Irazoqui on July 17, 2000 at 07:33:41: > >In Reply to: Re: About head or tail (was Upon scientific truth - the nature of >informati posted by Ed Schröder on July 17, 2000 at 07:15:45: > >On July 17, 2000 at 07:15:45, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>I know. Prove me wrong. :-) >> >>How about a 10 game match....? > >What for? What a waste... Comp-comp won't prove a thing no matter how many games >you play. Let's take a quick look: > >1 - Programs are helpless against anti-computer strategy, like Fritz in >Frankfurt and Junior in Dortmund. Their performance is inversely proportional to >human awareness of this shortcoming, and search alone won't solve the problem, >or at least it won't solve it before we all become very bald. Oh yes: in >comp-comp search is everything. > >2 - Programs are essentially polite social beings: they behave like GMs amongst >GMs, like 2300s amongst 2300s. For instance, look at Junior's performance in >Dortmund and in the Israeli league. > >3 - If program A has extra code to avoid closed positions and program B does >not, comp-comp won't show the difference as an advantage for A. If B is a faster >searcher, the extra code will harm A when playing B. > >4 - Comp-comp games show a partial and rather uninteresting picture, their >results don't necessarily correlate to human-comp and watching them can even >become a threat to one's mental health. > >Now go figure the statistic certainty of 10, 100 or 1000 comp-comp games. > >Enrique > >========================================================================== > >I think this was one of the best postings ever made in CCC. Point (2) states >more or less (and I deliberately put it strongly) that in Man vs Machine the elo >of the GM is irrelevant. > >If true it makes "little difference" to play a 2500, 2600, 2700 or even a 2800 >elo rated player if he (she) doesn't know how to play a computer. > >If the above is true and if GM van Wely doesn't know how to play a computer >Rebel should win, same as Fritz should beat Kramnik. I don't know about van Wely's preparationagainst computers, but if Kramnik wants he would beat Fritz 8-0. Yes, this is my usual understating self. :) >I found my answer to Enrique in the CCC archive, a snip.... > >=========================================================================== > >Based on the data available I (for now) have the following opinion: > >#1. Humans have their own specific weaknesses: time control, making >tactical blunders, not winning a won position, overlooking small things, >nerves, pressure to win (or lose), being afraid for the tactical power of >the beast (Kasparov was full of it), going for an easy draw out of fear, >not being on their best each day in a long tournament. Humans are also >vulnerable for all kind of things that are happening in normal life that >could damage their concentration during a tournament (not feeling so well >up to dramatic happenings in their personal circumstances), the list is >endless. > >#2. Computers have only a FEW weaknesses and CCC is full of it. > >#3. The disadvantages as mentioned in (#1) are advantages for the computer >and IMO are often underestimated. Kasparov being totally confused after he >resigned in game-2 in a drawn position against DB combined with the fact he >in his mind started to question the integrity of the match. I am no >psychologist but it is quite well possible the match was over after game-2. >Imagine the opposite: in a comp-comp event you suspect your remote opponent >being a grandmaster. We have a example from the past and we know what it >did to the programmer in question when he was accused. Can you fully >concentrate on your next game in such cases? IMO Kasparov could not as the >poison in his mind was killing his creativity. > >#4. IMO it is very important who you are playing. I for instance prefer to >play Karpov (even in his better days) over Piket, Seirawan or v/d Wiel as >Karpov with all respect is not such a good players against comps. For >instance Rebel got 2 easy draws against Karpov 3 years ago on a slow PC >and Karpov was very happy to accept a draw proposal with a few minutes left >on the clock Rebel being a pawn up. If you look at these games Karpov just >plays as Karpov which favors the computer, Rebel never was in trouble. I >even dare to mention Kasparov not able to give the computer the treatment >it deserves, the anti-computer strategy. IMO he is not able at least until >now. He tries (see the unorthodox openings after game-2) but he did not >manage. Note that Kasparov also lost a mini match against Genius some 4-5 >years ago. Apparently playing comps is an art in itself or you need to be >gifted. I frankly believe who you are playing matters a lot. > >============================================================================ > >Enrique where are you these days, we need your wisdom. Wisdom? Ha ha... Anyway, I'm peeping CC pages now and then, mostly CTF. In there I find the match US - rest-of-the-world fascinating. Good luck tomorrow. Enrique >Ed
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.