Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:57:41 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 15:02:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 31, 2003 at 14:22:48, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 31, 2003 at 11:05:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 31, 2003 at 07:56:58, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>As a careful scientist I can present the following results. The details of my >>>>method must remain secret, but you are invited to read CTFfor example. >>>> >>>>The actual program against Kasparov for the first time in history played for all >>>>the psyche of a concrete human opponent. We know that Kasparov believes in >>>>magic. Numbers are very important for him as symbols for something coming from a >>>>hidden world. So in consequence Kasparov believes in the super-natural of chess. >>>>Now what DEEP JUNIOR has done in game three is giving Kasparov the perception of >>>>a position that is completely lost for the computer side. In front of a castled >>>>King Kasparov saw two Knights on f6 and h6. Not enough, he had an open g-file >>>>against such a configuration! And his own King could still castle to the Queen's >>>>side! Three officers were directed against Black's King-side. Queen and two >>>>Bishops! The black King might have felt like Israel in front of the Arab World. >>>> >>>>But did Kasparov EVER have such a winning position against a human opponent? Of >>>>course not because only patzers would play like that. And against patzers you >>>>don't need your best chess. Here is the secret of the actual design of the >>>>Israeli computer program. What would happen if Kasparov had to win such a won >>>>position against precise calculations on the border of the allowed and possible >>>>in chess? Is he prepared for such a challenge? Of course not! >>> >>> >>>You are making one assumption that may turn out to be faulty: "The position >>>was winning for white after g4 Nxg4". >>> >>>It looked dangerous for black. But "looks" don't win against a computer. >>>Against a human, black might well have "folded". Just as surely as Kasparov >>>folded near the end of the game. But a computer generally won't, and during the >>>game no computer ever thought white was up by as much as a whole pawn. So it >>>might just be a case of something looking dangerous but not really being >>>dangerous. >>> >>>Computers are known for their ability to handle such positions very well, and >>>the inherent problem in such positions is that quite often, there is a very >>>fine line to walk as the position is played by both sides. Anytime you put >>>a human in a position where he has _one_ good choice, and _lots_ of fair to >>>bad choices, for many moves, the probability of a single mistake goes way up, >>>and what we saw in game three happens. >> >> >> >> >> >>How could I contradict you here? You are right. But I think that this is a >>general computer advantage. Only - in this game here White is better, almost won >>(among humans). Ok,please help analyse the position Michael gave here below. If >>you also doubt that human GM had winning chances in won positions, then what >>could they possibly achieve in drawn or worse situations? Ok, it seems as if you >>took the show event at face value, which I would never do, but you should NOT >>contradict your own statements, namely that comps are still not GM, or at least >>super GM strength. > >A couple of things here. 1. I _am_ rethinking my "position". But I am >beginning >to lean toward a _totally_ different conclusion than you might expect. Namely >that >"super-gm players" are _not_ really super-gm, they are simply able to >bluff/out-think >the lower-rated players. I get what you want to say but I don't buy it. I see you under the impression in the running show event. Please try to keep this factor in mind when you reflect the whole case! You don't see here the super GM Kasparov. Reason? There is no chance to be prepared on [now NOT the argument of the specific engine but...] the necessary chess you [as the human master] must play against computers. You can't argue as if such show games against machines are just an extension of super GM human chess, and then fantasysing the machines - in effect! - on super GM level! Because at that moment you again forgot about the background of Elo calculation. In show events you simply have no pool, Bob. :) I have a second argument: It was mentioned that Kasparov played normal chess "fortunately" and not "ugly" anti-computerchess. I must object. This is not true. Of course Kasparov would never try such play against Anand for example. Kasparov is well hoping for typical computer mistakes! But Kasparov is still not playing straight Anticomp. And I said, he didn't because 1) he doesn't want to like many GM, because it's against their ethos and 2) he's not familiar with real Anticomp 3) he's in a highly paid show event and he doesn't want to shredder JUNIOR. BTW SHREDDER was the real champion in Maasstricht. JUNIOR just won a few Blitz or Rapid. Remember what you said about the last CT tournament... Let me complicate the debate with a third argument on your bluff theory. I agree that the actual tournament chess from the sixties on when INFORMATOR began to publish their theoretical N, but mainly already from the first tournaments on in the 19th century, is a form of bluffing or let's better say progressing the level step by step and not too fast. It is enough if you play novelties, that are successful against the actual opponent. Against another player you might try another N or you would better play a totally different opening! I would agree with you that GM are aware that they do NOT write the theory for the next century but for the next game!! But that is just a practical attitude and must not be confused with pure gambling. Although the whole money aspect might have coruppted/ perverted the players. For all these "theories" we must always see that show events have no validity whatsoever. Are you now doubting that? >But when it comes to a computer, it can play multiple >moves >that are very ugly looking, but the human can't deliver the fatal blow, unless >he does >it _quickly_. The longer the game lasts, the greater the probability of an >error by >the human, and the game goes south. You are right when you claim that chess itself is a factor that might prevent the success of human plans. But let's speak it out! You have understood since long that chess is more than just the naked moves! I'm a lay in CC but even I was able to understand that you played different games in one single tournament game. Namely the famous time management! Now we can add the aspect of the length of a game, let's better say Middle Game! Of course your main goal is reaching the paradise of tables. And in the meantime you do all what you can to be obstructive. ;) In other words, you don't seek the creation of chess beauties but you just want to destroy human ideas and plans with that only goal - to survive the slim period of Middle Game, the period of the human creative superiority. (And Rolf says that no matter how slim this window remains, super GM still would find crucial knockouts IF they would start to seek them in fair tournament chess. But alas, there you buit up your second front of war. You boycot tournament chess and prefer show events. How premature. <g>) > >It is clear that for a general "chess skill" the computers are _nowhere_ near >the top >GM players. At least in terms of analyzing a position to produce the best move. > But >fatigue is a bigger issue that I would have guessed, as can be seen from the >Kramnik >match and now the Kasparov match. The human seems unable to keep up the mental >sharpness needed for 3-4 hours at a time, and one daydream later the game is >over, >as we have seen. The time has not come that our super GM need Sildenafil. Let's not go into the mode of wild guessing from the frog's perspective. In fact I can't see fatigue! This is all confusing the public about the real intentions of the marketing players. They play like patzers and must claim that they played like super GM who became tired. Psychologists don't buy faked handicaps. :) > In game 1, Kasparov blew it out quickly before tiring. In >game 2, >he was in a worse position but found a deep tactical plan and out-thought the >machine >to a draw when he might have lost. Hehe, you wanted to say that he might have _won_? But he didn't want to win. Yes, call me a fool. The prophet doesn't count in his home field - a famous German expression. :) > In game 3, he created a good position that >the machine >had no idea about what was happening, but when there was no quick kill, "meat >makes >mistakes" returned to haunt him and turn a simple draw into a complicated loss >that he >didn't even want to fight to a conclusion... Here you are confusing two things. I don't know why you are talking about quick kills. That is my worry in chess too. I always think that I must hurry up because otherwise my opponent plays his own plans. But this a typical patzer view on chess. As a super GM you have all the time in the world to get for the "slomo" kill. (slow motion) Your reasoning is well infected by our own patzer chess. No flamewar intended. I am a patzer too. And still another argument. We here and many people are impressed by Kasparov's tricks. Because that is why he is paid so much because he can create a chess game FOR the machine so that it all looks like the machine had something to perform in its positive sense. When IN REAL the machine played plain BULL! Like JUNIOR in this third game. As I said, my MEPHISTO Exclusive from 1984 (Elo 1600 at maximum) payed on the same level like JUNIOR here after book. It's a shame! 20 years for nothing. No, that is not true. Exaggerating. > >So I am perhaps redefining my definition of "GM strength" to have a "weariness" >component. Since a computer has no such problem, the longer the game, and the >more >complex it is, even if the machine is losing, it will probably draw or win due >to the >"weariness factor". You are right. If the super GM believes in supernatural (like Kasparov) and that he must not train for computer games! With train I mean he must invent/ create a completely new chess! Strictly based on the limitations of the machine. Period! > >Something I had not considered before. But you did, Bob, with your time management. ;) > >We knew it was a factor for long matches... ie karpov vs kasparov for the WC >years ago. >But now it is becoming a problem in a _single_ game... that is interesting. You are a real devil! > > > > > >>And we two at least should agree here that Elo is nothing of >>"real" strength but only performance result. However if that is true then you >>must consider that show events do not reveil the maximal strength of human >>players against comps. That could only be tested under tournament conditions and >>that is exactly what your collegues don't appreciate. They _know_ and you too >>know that comps would be torn into pieces if humans could only take some >>continual periods of training=preparing. Against that desaster you have the >>tradition of always producing new versions, of twisting and tweaking. Ok! What I >>am talking about is what rests at the base beyond all these tricks or better >>traditions in CC. Let me ask you a simple question. Would you bet a fortune that >>you could confuse all human GM _all_ the time and _forever_ right now or would >>you admit that human GM would kill the actual programs in the longer run? > >I think "the longer the run" the worse the human is going to do. Based on the >"weariness factor" that has become more apparent. > >> I am >>only interested in that question. Because the meaning is my theory that all the >>success in CC against human players results mainly from inexperience of the >>human side. However that could be changed. But what you couldn't change is the >>actual weakness of your creations, at least for the coming three decades. Of >>course that will change in the end. I never doubted it. But not yet today. So, >>wouldn't it be more honest to renounce all imposterdom? Itlooks so naive. I >>don't mean you in person, but >>CC in general... >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> > > >The programs will continue to get better. To the point that a GM can't even >match wits >with them on a single position to find the best move. But it seems that sitting >down and >playing for four hours, against a strong program, is getting to be more than the >human >mind can handle... You are dreaming. If super GM start what I am preaching (GO FOR THE LIMITATIONS OF THESE IMPOSTERING THINGS!!!) all day long, you won't find sleep for your dreams anylonger. Why super GM sould play best moves? They play _worst_ moves if they know that a machine could be impressed this way! But forget about Kasparov, forget about Kramnik. They won't do that. It would be against their education. They are artists. But here we need snakes, hyaenas and louses! Of course the human relatives. And - the machine will feel like being invaded by an army of _bugs_. ;) As you said. "Where's the incentive?" Now I told you... And don't play the innocent! :) Rolf Tueschen > > > > >> >>> >>>Ng6+ was a solid drawing move, but Kasparov either (a) missed it (which seems >>>unlikely) or (b) he thought the rook move gave him winning chances, without >>>enough time to really analyze carefully. Whichever reason really doesn't >>>matter that much. If you are the world's best "minesweeper" you still take >>>a chance every time you walk on to a minefield... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>So this is the answer how David could still beat Goliath. Big super powers have >>>>to control a huge traffic of their own while little David must only concentrate >>>>on the strategically weakest spaces and entities of the enemy. Perhaps we have >>>>seen the birth of a new chess pattern. After the famous Nf8 position that often >>>>can defend the whole Kingside for Black we have now the Nh6 position. This is >>>>chess of the third thousand. It is worth more than three times Las Vegas. >>>> >>>>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.