Author: martin fierz
Date: 18:06:11 10/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2002 at 19:58:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 10, 2002 at 19:19:07, Wayne Lowrance wrote: > >>On October 10, 2002 at 18:26:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 10, 2002 at 18:15:48, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On October 10, 2002 at 18:06:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 10, 2002 at 15:00:33, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 10, 2002 at 11:25:53, Graham Laight wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Considering that Fritz lost two of the first four games, and drew the other two, >>>>>>>winning three of the remaining four games (the minimum needed to win the match) >>>>>>>is a tall order. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-g >>>>>> >>>>>>At this point even one more draw and a win is better than what most of us here >>>>>>expected from Deep Fritz. I still have hope for DF to win the first game of the >>>>>>match, and as Kramnik becomes more fatigue the better the chances for Deep Fritz >>>>>>to win one single game. This is a great accomplishment for Deep Fritz team to be >>>>>>able to draw at least 3 games, considering that Kramnik had the actual program >>>>>>before the match. This performance is much better than Deeper Blue of 1997, >>>>>>considering the condictions set before the match for Kasparov. >>>>>> >>>>>>Pichard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No way DF could surpass the result posted by DB in 1997. It might _equal_ that >>>>>result if >>>>>it manages to win. But not if it gets drubbed as it has in the first four >>>>>games... >>>> >>>>Kasparov would have also drubbed Deeper blue if he was allowed to play against >>>>deeper Blue for at least a month before the match started. Lets NOT just count >>>>the # of Win or Draw here, lets consider the case under the same circunstance. >>>> >>>>Pichard. >>> >>> >>>Based on what? The match rules would _still_ have allowed modifications to be >>>made between rounds. But Kasparov couldn't possibly have played against Deep >>>Blue >>>until it was completed, which happened a week or so prior to the match. >> >>I have stayed out of this DB thing. But I would have to guess that DB would not >>have won the match if it was held at a later date with the same rules that DF >>has to live with. Just conjecture of course, but this whole match has pissed me >>off from the very start because of the rules, unfair I think >> >>Wayne > > >This is a classic case of "self-screwing". :) The conditions are ridiculous, >and the >match can be called the same now, since we _knew_ how it was going to turn out, >given the conditions that are in effect. i don't believe a word of what you are saying. except if the DF opening book in the match is the same as the one as kramnik got, under the rules. that would make a big difference. else, the DF team just screwed itself by not changing it's opening book, or not enough, for this match. and until shown otherwise, i don't believe that kramnik worked out any of these games in any detail. he is playing his standard openings. he is not playing weird moves like 1. a3 to get into some worked out game. since kramnik is playing what he usually plays, the DF team should have anticipated that and changed the book for kramnik's main lines. if they didnt, shame on them. in response to your other post: >I have thought more about this, and I would make the following >controversial statement >(the reasons will eliminate the controversy however): > > Crafty _would_ do better than Fritz in this match. Not that I would >expect it to win, >but it _would_ do better. this is indeed controversial! and your reasons don't convince me: >Now for the "why?" > >1. If we stick crafty in _right now_ all the weaknesses he has found >in Fritz are useless. "all"? you must be kidding! his general strategy is to go into relatively simple endgames. which is a good idea against ANY program - be it fritz or crafty. >Crafty evaluates endgames differently >(and better in many but not all cases). emm, "hype"? how do you know that crafty evaluates endgames better than fritz? do you have anything to base this claim on? fritz won this rook endgame test of sune... not that rook endings are all there is of course, but i don't really think fritz is weak in endings. > So all his pre-match >preparations would go right down the toilet, and the onus would be >on him to find Crafty's (many) weaknesses, OTB in games that count. >Not that easy. i'll claim that one weakness in crafty is exactly the same as DF: go ahead and set up the position of game 2 after the moves 34...Kd7 35. Rc5. tell me that crafty would play 35...Rc8! and i will shut up. AFAIK ALL programs will rather go for a passive defence in a bad rook ending and be slaughtered rather than giving a pawn for counterplay. if crafty does not see ...Rc8!, it has the same weakness as fritz in this rook endgame. >One mistake is all he has to make to lose a game, right. but he has not even come close yet in his games against fritz. whenever a mistake by kramnik comes, it will be exploited by fritz just as well as by crafty or any other top program. >and probing for unknown weaknesses would not be >easy with only eight games to play, and with the program possibly >"changing personalities" between rounds. changing personalities means changing eval weights, right? sounds good, but most of kramnik's knowledge of chess has eval weight 0 in fritz and in crafty too. changing the weights of all your parameters still leaves that 0 right there... >2. If Crafty had started this match it would have done better. >Because I would _not_ have agreed to the silly rule about "he gets a >copy of the program beforehand and no changes can be made to the >program after that unless he gets the new version far enough in advance to >test it thoroughly." I have no doubt Kramnik would still win. >Perhaps he would even win every game. But the games would _not_ be > boring endgame losses, the endgames would have inbalances that >would make them quite interesting, as would the middlegame. and what makes you think that? why would the endgames be different with crafty? aloha martin
This page took 0.01 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.