Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:14:35 10/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 01:30:09, Ingo Althofer wrote: >On October 26, 2002 at 16:06:21, Roy Eassa wrote: >> >>What would be the result of a match between a top GM and, say, Deep Fritz 7 >>running on Bahrain-level hardware, if the top GM were able to consult an >>outdated chess program running on fairly slow hardware (to avoid blunders)? > >(I) Kasparov proposed such a setting already in summer 1996. After the win of >his first match against Deep Blue negotiations for the revenge started. Kasparov >surprised IBM by a far-reaching proposal: >"In the revenge, please allow me to use during the games a normal notebook (with >at most 150 MHz in those days) with >(a) an opening book >(b) endgames data bases >(c) some standard commercial chess program for tactical checks." >IBM did not permit this sort of help. > >(II) In summer 2000 GM Rainer Knaak (Elo 2510) played an experimental match >under tournament time rules. He had the help of Fritz6 on a notebook with 233 >MHz (P-II). The opponents were other chess programs on a PC with 500 MHz. The >results were >Knaak + fritz vs. CHESSTIGER 3 -1 (+2,=2,-0) >Knaak + fritz vs. SHREDDER5 2.5-1.5 (+2,=1,-1) >There was a report on this experiment in the ICGA Journal. > >For the first half of 2003 another experiment Ingo, could you please explain, what exactly makes out of your hobby activities "another experiment"? I fear you are not aware of the terminology. Experimental match, experiment, another experiment. Again, is it automatically an experiment - if you, a professor, make something and write a little report in some journal? Just in case youprefer to stay silent, please read also the next question below. Thanks. >of this type is in preparation at >Jena University: Please, Prof. Althöfer, since you mention your university, may I be allowed to ask you what sort of "experiment" you are talking about? Since you made an official announcement here, I would like to get further information. Thank you. >A GM with Elo 2500+ together with help from a 233 MHz notebook shall play a >series of active chess games against single programs on a faster PC (probably >with 1533 MHz). > > >>[Imagine Kramnik plus, say, Fritz 5.32 running on, say, a 400 MHz P-II versus >>Deep Fritz 7 running on the Bahrain hardware or better if available. Assume >>that the old program has no opening book and no tablebases -- it's just there to >>sanity-check tactics to a moderate level.] > >Fritz 5.32 would be a good such helper because of its enormous tactical >strength. Concretely, Kramnik would not have blundered in round 5, and very >probable Fritz5.32 would have shown him that the attack in round 6 does not go >through. That is both wrong! Perhaps you mean the following instead. If Kramnik could have used Fritz 5.32 (why such ideosyncrasies?) he couldn't have allowe himself to play the blunder intentiously. Because people could have asked him if he couldn't read the displayed information. Because the "blunder" wasn't a blunder but something else, Kramnik might well have found something else to lose a game also with Fritz 5.32. <g> NB that the explanation for the "blunder" of Kramnik is absolutely a hoax. And for the 6th you want to insinuate that Fritz 5.32 could have decided that Nxf7 couldn't succeed? Well, I don't think so. Could we get further information from your side? Excuse the question, you can well remain silent, because you are academic... so I know that you don't need evidence or good documentation for "experiments" or wild guesses. Rolf Tueschen > >Ingo Althofer.
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.