Author: pavel
Date: 07:00:05 07/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2002 at 09:24:38, stuart taylor wrote: >On July 12, 2002 at 07:59:46, pavel wrote: > >>On July 12, 2002 at 07:05:38, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On July 12, 2002 at 01:03:28, ERNIE COLLADO wrote: >>> >>>>The game I played with Spassky was at a simul held in NY around 30 yaers ago. >>>>1974 or around there. Needless to say I was decapitated rather quickly. I will >>>>try and look through my files and see if I can find the game. <Regards, Ernie> >>> >>>I'm sure that anyone who can win 1.5 from 20 games with Fritz 7 (at any of the >>>serious modes with equal timings), can easily beat any GM at a simultaneous >>>exhibition. >>>Tell me I'm wrong! Anyone? >>>S.Taylor >> >>Yes you are wrong. >>I once almost beat Fritz7 with the aid of my anti-computer games database, but >>at the endgame, I made a blunder and lost the game. (fritz7 had around -3.00) >>You might say that I had aid of a special purpose database (which is true), if I >>can do this (being 1500-ish) than think about the people who has excellent >>understanding about anti-computer chess. >>they don't necessarily need to be impressively high rated player. >> >>A good example would be, if you can visit ICC (even with guest account) try >>checking out the games that computers loose (commercial programs) at blitz games >>to un-titled human players.....sweet. >> >>I don't see any relation between beating Fritz7 and beating a GM easily in a >>simultaneous exhibition. >> >>bad example... >> >>cheers, >>pavs >Nearly winning is also a very big difference in ELO than actually winning, but >if the "nearly" is genuine, it only shows promise. >Also, I mean at equal timing, and without taking back moves, let alone being >aided. >I'd still like to hear if others disagree whith me. > The game was in equal timing (40'40), no take back (If I could takeback then I would not make the blunder, would I? :)) I had access to some 1000 anti-comp games, Fritz7 had access to millions of game in it's opening book ;) it's a pity that i didn't bother to save the game :( >Anti-computer understanding can help alot, but it's not enough. > Anyway, isn't it a shame to always try to outsmart a computer through >anti-computer "tactics"? Is that all computer programs were made for? Still, >their holes are getting smaller and closing up, aren't they? >S.Taylor there is nothing wrong with exploiting weakness in a program. During GM games, players ussually study opening and tries to look for patterns of his opponents games to look for weakness, as a preperation before the game. Nothing wrong with that. A win is a win, whether it's anti-comp or not is not the question. the win of Smirin against CT14 was an excellent example. Smirin didn't win by creating blocked position (as many would say an anti-comp position), but won purely due to superior positional understanding. Now if someone exploits that same kind of position against that version of chesstiger repeatedly, would it be anti-comp ? hey chess programs plays anti-human by playing open position, at which humans are ussually weak at. both are fair. cheers, pavs
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.