Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 11:11:40 04/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2002 at 13:29:37, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On April 12, 2002 at 13:24:17, Roy Eassa wrote: > >>On April 12, 2002 at 08:34:10, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >> >>>nemeth-games by Tim Krabbe: >>> >>>http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/honor.htm >> >> >>One quote from there: >> >>"But perhaps Nemeth's greatest invention is an absurd anti-computer gambit that >>I would like to call the Nemeth Gambit. Using it, he beat five of the world's >>strongest chess programs in one day. >> >> The characteristic position arises after: 1.e4 c5 2.Na3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Bc4 >>Nf6 5.h3 Nxe4 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Qh5+ Ke6 8.Qg4+ Kd5 9.c4+ dxc3 10.Be3" > >Read on, Roy... > >(...) >It is possible that Nemeth (like me) went through some trial-and-error before he >won these games, but that is not the point; the point is that it is possible to >beat the strongest chess programs in the world with the Nemeth Gambit, or with >1.d4 h5 2.e4 e5. >Of course, computers also find good moves that a human would never think of, and >they're a great help in analysis, but what I want to demonstrate is that they >don't "play chess". As the above games show, they have passed the capturing >test, but they're a long way from passing the Turing test. In spite of all the >blustering about Kramnik who will "defend humanity's honor against the computer" >(Der Spiegel) and "gain revenge for the human race" (The Telegraph), his >upcoming match against some Fritz has, apart from the money involved, no more >significance than a match between a cat and a book for the greatest weight. >As a defender of humanity's honor, I prefer Nemeth. >(...) > Interesting, and it seems to support my point(s). It is not "revenge" or humanity's "honor" I am thinking of. It is the truth about chess strength. We have all learned in recent years just how fallible GMs are when they play chess. They simply CANNOT calculate hundreds of thousands of intricate variations the way a computer can. What we may forget is that computers are fallible in DIFFERENT ways. The very fact that an opening like the Nemeth Gambit has even a CHANCE against an opponent means (to me) that this opponent has significant weaknesses. We have all seen numerous examples of other computer weaknesses. To say that the computer has weaknesses is NOT to say that GMs lack weaknesses! However, it seems to me that the GMs' major weaknesses have ALREADY been exploited by the programs whereas the programs' major weaknesses have not yet been exploited by the GMs. GMs' knowledge of how to do this (much less extensive practice at doing so!) is in its infancy IMHO. PS: I believe Eduard has denied using trial and error in most of his games. PPS: All it will take is ONE non-GM human player who can consistenly beat a top program to prove that top programs are inconsistent (at best) in their ability to play at top-GM level. AFAIK, has there NEVER been a non-GM human player who could consistently beat a top GM.
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.