Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 05:13:19 02/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 07:36:26, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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. Hi Enrique, >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. :) Kramnik has a very unfair advantage against Fritz because in the meantime he should know all about the particular weaknesses of Fritz. If only Fritz was allowed to change parameters cq personalities I am not so sure about the outcome. I don't know about van Wely, he has Century 4 for a couple weeks, I guess that's not enough debugging Rebel. And if needed I have a few surprises for him, I am armed to the teeth, hungry as a lion, my blood pressure is rising to unacceptable heights, now if only 2700+ elo rated van Wely would cooperate a little :) >>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. Yep, the game of chess on a bigger playing board. You definitely should join the rest of the world :) Ed PS, welcome back. >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.