Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:21:54 10/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2002 at 21:36:10, Mike Byrne wrote: >On October 09, 2002 at 16:26:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 09, 2002 at 14:52:43, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On October 09, 2002 at 12:50:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 09, 2002 at 12:46:42, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>>> >>>>>...the question is if Fritz team is allowed to make the same changing of the >>>>>params of the program to tune it better against the Human Champion strategy, or >>>>>at least to make Fritz to not repeat the same moves each time... >>>>> >>>>>w.b.r. >>>>>Otello >>>> >>>> >>>>I think the pre-match agreement prevents this, which is a pretty stupid >>>>stipulation IMHO. >>>>The human can study a game and change his strategy for the next, but the >>>>computer cannot? >>>> >>>>The agreement is really a joke, IMHO. >>> >>>Do you think it would really make that much difference, considering how Kramnik >>>lures it out of book early and then proceeds with his strategy to exchange >>>Queens, to exploit endgame weaknesses all programmes suffer from? >>> >>>If you change parameters for the programme to hold it's Queen, for example, >>>it may be a serious mistake, allowing Kramnik a strong or even winning >>>advantage. >>> >>>I think we can't compare changing parameters with Fritz, a commercial programme, >>>on an 8 CPU machine to that of Deep Blue a supercomputer, which has tremendous >>>flexibility. I just don't believe there is room for serious improvement in this >>>case. >>> >>>IOW it may make little difference or worse, causing Fritz to go down in flames! >>>IMO Fritz is playing well and fighting well, considering it is drawn into the >>>area of the game all programmes struggle with. >>> >>>Terry >> >> >>That I can't answer. But the rule saying it can't be done is just bad, period. >>IE I have >>some global sort of evaluation terms that I could (and would) modify between >>rounds. If >>I noticed the human trying to lock up the pawns, I'd turn that scoring term up a >>bit to try to >>avoid it. If he tries to attack then I'd turn that up to push him another >>way... >> >>Fritz is playing fine, for a computer. Unfortunately, it _needs_ to be playing >>like a GM, >>which it is not doing at the moment... >> >>Kramnik's match agreement highlights this problem with all the practice he has >>had against >>an opponent that he _knows_ can't change ideas between rounds... > >I have to agree with you - it's a bad rule. I am a 1600-1700 player -- I can >now regularly (after 2 years) beat Chess Genius Palm (often peg @ 2000) ona >regular basis - it doesn't change - I know it's weaknesses. I am not a 2000 >player now , I'm just a 1600/1700 player that can beat Chess Genius Palm. >Under these conditions - access to the program for a long before the match and >with no changes once the game started - the program would have to be several >hundred point strongers than the GM to have a chance. > >But I don't think the Fritz people really cared - it's really not about winning >for them - like it was for IBM. This is about computer chess promotion - and at >that, they succeeded 100%. There is a lot more interest right now about >computer chess than there's been for some time, since the DB-GK match. IBM's >plan all along (I believe) was to beat GK and then to take the box apart. It's >like hitting a home run in your last at bat. There will never be the same >excitement regarding human/computer chess as there was in 96/97. Look at >computer checkers - although never having the interest of computer chess - the >high point was when Chinook won it's first WC against a human. It's been a PR >non-event after the first couple of wins aginst top humans. The problem is that public perception is not always particularly acute. IE the general public feels that "chess was solved" by the DB project. It wasn't. The general public is going to conclude that "Fritz is a lemon" after getting soundly thrashed. Not a true conclusion, of course, but it will probably be "the conclusion" by the masses, which is unfortunate...
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.