Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 06:59:05 10/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 06:14:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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outdated chess program running on fairly slow hardware (to avoid blunders)?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. Rolf!!! Shame on you! Please TRY to be nice to Ingo. : )
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.