Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:08:55 09/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2002 at 04:44:23, Joachim Rang wrote: >On September 21, 2002 at 16:56:54, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 21, 2002 at 15:30:35, Joachim Rang wrote: >> >>>On September 21, 2002 at 13:39:17, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On September 21, 2002 at 13:00:05, K. Burcham wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>when I first learned that this statement is used and accepted often, I had to >>>>>laugh. >>>>>when anyone makes this statement, they are admitting that programs have enough >>>>>problems that if a GM has the program before the match, that these problems can >>>>>be discovered, and used during the match to play for the win. >>>>>I find this amusing. >>>> >>>>The interesting match is when humans do not get a copy. >>>>I could understand giving humans a copy if computers proved themselves to be >>>>superior in normal conditions but computers still need to prove that they are >>>>superior in normal conditions. >>>> >>>>I can add that the only way to beat humans who get a copy before the match is by >>>>some non deterministic behaviour otherwise the human can learn the right games >>>>before the match and the right games can be even games of the program against >>>>itself. >>>> >>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>> >>>this would mean, that one should be able to repeat "killergames" in an official >>>match. Due to a big opening book and the right for the computerteam to choose >>>the first move, this won't happen. >> >>No >> >>White may get the opponent out of book very quickly by means of 1.e4 2.Qe2 >>so I suspect that it is enough to learn 20 games to win with white against >>deterministic machine. >> >>White get almost equallity after 1.e4 2.Qe2 and it is possible to beat the >>computer later because computers are not perfect. >> >>Of course it is possible to build a big book to make similiar ideas impossible >>but I doubt if the Fritz that kramnik got has it. >> >>Uri > > >1.e4 2.Qe2 is already in the Fritz7-Book. After every move of black? I know that 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 is theoretic but what about 1.e4 e5 2.Qe2(is it in Fritz7's book) > >I doubt that Kramnik will play such doubtfuly openings and I doubt that he has >chances against Fritz with such openings. > >But we'll see in few weeks. Today its all speculation... 1.e4 2.Qe2 is not the best but I believe that you can not only win in this opening but that you can beat Fritz without the knight b1 if you try enough games and take back enough moves. In blitz it is even possible to do it without a rook but when I consider the fact that the time control is tournament time control I prefer to be careful and say a knight. It may be more interesting to see a tournament between humans and programs when the programs use fixed time of 4 minutes per move and the humans can take back moves. The target of the humans should be to beat the programs with the biggest material disadvantage(legal position to start should be opening position without a pawn or 2 pawns or a knight or more material). The programs should be deterministic with no positional learning from previous games. I believe that if you give humans a week to try you can expect them to get at least a win without a knight. a big prize should be given for the human who succeed to do it with the biggest handicap otherwise I suspect that humans are not going to have motivation to play and analyze all day for 7 days. Uri
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.