Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 09:19:34 10/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 12:12:46, Roy Eassa wrote: >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outdated chess program running on fairly slow hardware (to avoid blunders)?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. > > > >1) I think he was using the term "experiment" colloquially. You mean naively? > >2) The theory that Kramnik blundered intentionally is not proven either way. It >is a possibility, but my assessment is that it's significantly less than 20% >likely to be true. Fine, but then please explain Alzheimer's theory of sudden losses in memory. Rolf Tueschen
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.