Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 01:51:10 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 03:07:35, Sandro Necchi wrote: I hope you realize how jealous your statement sounds, apart from reality that no program ever was and for now not will be at top GM level. I am not even watching the games too much from kasparov-junior because kasparov can even toy with it by playing openings which are not having any theoretic relevance which makes the match IMHO irrelevant from my viewpoint, but definitely it is a good thing for the big audience. Now you claim 2 things a) you can do better against kasparov b) indirectly that shredder won this world championship and not junior b is very misleading to post here by you. and with regard to a i don't give you an inch of trust there. No one believes you can do a better job there at all. In fact i have some very rude statements from different openingsbook programmers with regard to a guy called 'necchi'. I won't post them here. that would get outside of the discussion. But definitely it doesn't qualify for: "brilliant openingsnovelties to surprise kasparov". In fact Kasparov has already found out that by playing some weird sideline where computer can make mistake in the center, that it will make a mistake there. Pretty weird knowing there is 100% easier methods to get a won position. >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.