Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 00:07:35 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2003 at 23:14:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 29, 2003 at 15:40:00, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >At world champs 1999 when programs played GMs after the world champ which >shredder won, i was following the german comments. In german during the GM >versus computer games especially a certain chessbase paid commentator was saying >each 90 seconds: "i really believe that fritz was better this world championship >than shredder. Fritz earned to win it, it is much better". > >Somehow i get impression i am hearing the same type of marketing below here from >you. And that in the year 2003. Shame on you! Vincent, you are offending the people just because they make statements you do not believe in. Sorry, I am not saying I know everything (maybe you do?). I am only saying that based on 25 years computer experience and a lot of work I have made something which I believe can help a program to beat the strongest chess player. I did not say I am 100% sure Shredder will win. I said I believe we can win. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE or not? I do not think anybody can claim you know everything, so neither you. I have nothing to get shame of. I think you do! Sorry if I will not continuo to reply, but it seems timewaste... Sandro > >>On January 29, 2003 at 11:45:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On January 28, 2003 at 15:11:42, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On January 28, 2003 at 08:18:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 28, 2003 at 01:10:48, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 27, 2003 at 19:22:19, andrew tanner wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> There seems to be no basis for this belief other than DEEP BLUE and it's >>>>>>>legacy, which is a legacy of "the sky is falling" type of despair. If computers >>>>>>>continue to improve tactically, then GM's will learn from them and also improve >>>>>>>tactically. Man has always improved in everything he does. Accelerated rates of >>>>>>>improvement for chess computers with faster hardware or knowldege doesn't >>>>>>>automatically translate into wins against strong GM's. Bring it on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -A.T. >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not agree. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think with the right approch and a fast hardware Shredder can win the match >>>>>>also now if we were allowed to. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sandro Necchi >>>>> >>>>>Nonsense of course. Shredder is a too passive program for that. >>>> >>>>Well, cannot give info, but this is not true anymore... >>> >>>This is a contradiction. >> >>Well, you do make statements on what you know. >>I do on what you don't know. >> >> >>>I conclude falsum out of that. I conclude >>>out of that that it is too passive even when compared to DIEP, Fritz, >>>Yace, Gandalf, SOS, Pharaon, to perform at equal strength against humans. >> >>Well, it is not necessary true that to win against a human player it is >>necessary to play aggressive. >>It depends how strong you play the way you play. >>Very important is which openings you play and how good are the positions that >>arise from those openings for the program. I mean if the computer will >>understand them and play correctly. >>This is the real challenge as if the opening is not good enough for the program >>it would be enough that the opponent play a weaker move to put the program our >>of book and in trouble. >> >>> >>>Has nothing to do with how good shredder is in world champs. >> >>Of course. >> >>>It sits and waits there and opponents f' themselves and Shredder profits ( >>>junior sits too, but junior doing it in a way more active but anti positional >>>way). >>> >>>Shredder is easy to beat for a titled player who doesn't blunder away material. >> >> >>Well, what happen to the swiss team than? >> >>> >>>The others are a nightmare to beat because they play more active. >> >> >>If you kill them in the opening phase it will be a nighmare for the program... >> >>>Crafty lacks loads of knowledge, but it is at least also playing *active*; it >is in that respect also way harder to beat for a human than Shredder. >> >> >>I do not agree. Sorry. >> >>> >>>>With the std. passive style I would agree with you but there are other way to >>>>change things... >>>>I have been studying this for years and I was with MChess the first one to beat >>>>a GM at long time controls. 6 games (GM Igor Efimov). >>>>It was M-Chess 6.5 running on a 200 MHz Pentium MMX >>>> >>>>Believe, I know what I am saying. >>> >>>M-chess is not comparable with Shredder. Mchess is based upon things like >>>mobility. Shredder isn't. If it is inside shredder mobility, it will be >having a >minor score. >> >>Yes, this is true, but it is also true that Shredder is stronger. >> >>>Not saying that this is worse from objective viewpoint, but for >>>sure is having less of an impact against humans. >> >>I do not agree. I think Shredder can do quite well. >>Since you seems to know everything, do you know what GMs Shredder M3 is? >> >>I am referring to this program on my statements. >> >>You do not? >> >>> >>>M-Chess didn't have that problem, though of course software from around 96-97 >is completely outdated by todays standards. >> >> >>OK, but running on a slow hardware (Pentium 166 / Pentium Pro. 200 MMX) with a >>special book prepared by me scored 2589 Elo points against human players out of >>19 games at long time controls (matches with games 1h time or longer for each >>player). >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>Best regards, >>>>>Vincent >>>> >>>>Best regards >>>>Sandro >> >>Best regards >>Sandro
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.