Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Strength of the engine in chess programs

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 12:16:00 05/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On May 21, 2002 at 14:50:37, Albert Silver wrote:

>>>2200? you must be kidding! my rating is 2240 FIDE and even if i start all my
>>>games against fritz with 1.h3 or some other (quite sensible) moves to take it
>>>out of the book, i have no chance against it.
>>>maybe someone here could experiment with a few top programs using no book
>>>against other top programs.
>>
>>Give up.  This is an old argument that started on r.g.c.c a year or two ago.
>>I challenged those saying that an engine was 2200 without a book to play mine
>>in a match.  They wriggled and finagled, and _never_ accepted.  Because they
>>_know_ this is nonsense, but it makes for a good "troll" or "diversion" for
>>them..
>
>I beg to differ. The claim was that an engine was not much better than _1900_
>without a book.

Now that I think about it, you are right.  Phil Innes started this discussion
when trying to show that the DB guys had cheated to win the match with Kasparov.
When the "human intervention" idea failed after everyone had studied the DB
logs carefully, he then went on to claim that a "special anti-kasparov book"
was used, based on a "deep mine" idea he had.

He claimed to be a 2400 player and I offered to let him play my "1900 program
without a book" to prove that he could win 9 of every 10 games against it.  He
then diverted the conversation repeatedly away from such a logical "test"
because it would have broken his agenda.  Rolf chimed right in with him and kept
the argument going on and on...  until (at least) the two of us gave up trying
to discuss things.  This was about the time when Phil decided that he would try
to undermine me here at UAB by contacting local folks to complain about my
support for the DB "fiasco" (his words).  Never caused me a moment of
difficulty, of course...


> The argument got quite funny as I recall. After much wriggling
>as you noted, the main proponent of this idea explained that if it played the
>Schliemann (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5) with White and no book it would do no
>better than a 1900 performance. Not a problem, you noted, as with no book this
>would never happen as it didn't even play the Ruy Lopez with the book off much
>less the Schliemann. The answer was that this proved your program was bunk as it
>didn't play a known superior opening when all strong players know and play it.

That and the Latvian were interesting discussions (e4 e5 Nf3 f5).  With the
same broken logic...



>Well, the modern Najdorf, a known superior opening wasn't played until the 50s
>either so I guess that all the players prior to then were bunk too. At that
>point the all-time winning strategy was to change the subject and say that your
>problem was that you didn't understand the issues and problems involved due to
>your narrow view of things, etc. :-)))
>
>You know, I think one could easily write a modern version of Eliza like that.
>
>                                          Albert


Hell, I thought that _was_ Eliza (or doctor).  :)




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.