Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 02:19:13 02/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2003 at 04:32:13, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >When we witness human v comp events, that although this is a computer chess >forum, a human is involved. What i mean is that we see for example people saying >g3 would have won because my computer say so or even worse "it just does" with >no further evidence to back such statements up. Excuse me, if someone under a pseudo declames in the name of 'we' it is something to be looked upon with care. It is surely problematic viewed from a serious perspective (psychology for example) if someone wants to support a specific side in the debate, but carefully hiding that motivation, just by insinuating that the other side would prefer to put questions or guesses into "facts". The method of confusioning is dishonest viewed from serious perspectives. I want to explain why this is dishonest. Because someone with high interest wants to defamate the opposite side. Let us analyse what is goig on here. We attend a show event of which we KNOW as a FACT that the human player (allegedly) gets 500 000 US$$ just for showing up! This fact is to be remembered in all further debates. Let's forget about the peanuts he gets in case he wins, loses or draws the show. Now that is the usual deal in sports like boxing for instance. Now something about the motivation of the player. We know for sure that only with a special anti-comp-strategy (a completely riduculous one and useless for human chess) even GM could win on passing by against today's machines. As I said (you see: I am honest, I don't claim to speak for a clique or lobby) the strateg is somekind of ridiculous. Now that is the reason why GM hate to do the homework for such a nonsense. While we know for sure that many experts in CC and average players especially like to cook such exclusively anti-comp remedies. Now guess what! Are these people invited for a Donut or are the special players from Russia, who travel around the world in the endless search for money, the prefered opponents for comp-human show events? [I must excuse because I know well that the money input in chess is in itself ridiculously low compared with all other sports and multimedia events. It should be understood that I do NOT want to blame the poor chess talents from former URS. Compared with their talents they sell themselves to the devil called peanuts. Let there be no doubt about it!] What is the best gamble in such a show? Viewed from a serious perspective,not a lobby? Clear: draw or almost draw! Why? Because. It's simply the best for a future deal. So if people here, me included, look simply on the moves and fid moves like a3 in the 5th a bit telling in connection with the game later on, then this is not conspiracy stuff telling. Not by far! Let me state that it's dirty that people who have no standing in chess try to defamate those who surely are no masters but who have chess knowledge enough and also CC experience enough and also anti-comp enough, that they can judge what a specific development on the board might tell. And also this: If the existing real experts are part of the business deal there is no other choice for the experienced lover to make up his one mind, because the expertsabstain or talk propaganda. Also the money greed of especially Kasparov - high above of pride - is legendary. PCA - just a term to remember. So, what was it with your preaching ceremonies? Let me ask a few questions. How much money David Levy gets for that his organization attends the show? What is the recompense of players/experts like Mig, Gazza, Maurice and Frederic? Excuse me, you (who?) ordered to ask questions! Rolf Tueschen > When Kasparov opted for the draw >it was not part of a conspiracy, but human eval at work so to speak, i think >Terry have really hit the nail on the head when he pointed to the fact that >legally any human influencing the result of a betting match, other than trying >his best, would be in a lot of trouble which could cost them their career, >reputation and whatever finances they have made from competing, there is simply >too much to lose to be part of a conspiracy.. > >Well back to the human aspect, my dad once asked Tony Miles if he thought >Kaspoarov had any weaknesses on the board and Tony after a long think said: >"well maybe he is sometimes too optimistic", the point here is that he did not >point to a weakness on the board, but a character weakness (related to chess of >course). Now if we look at game 3 which DJ won, some would say that Kasparov >lost it, he said about Rh5 that he thought it drew, had it been Leko to play in >that position i guess we can all agree that he would not have played Rh5, but >gone for the repetition instead, probably not because he would have seen Rh5 >losing, but because he is more pessimistic by nature, in the sense that if a >position is unclear for both parts and he has a clear draw by rep or otherwise >he will go for that. Kasparov we could say was too optimistic when he played Rh5 >which he thought was a forced draw + it kept small winning chances open for him, >this approach when you are as good as Kasparov will favour him in the long run >against humans, whereas the opposite seems to be true against the computer, >maybe that is the price for being too optimistic... > >If we look at the recent comp v human matches, Gulko v DF the match was drawn, >Van Wely v Rebel drawn, Kramnik v DF drawn, Hiarcs v Bareev drawn, this pattern >is IMO NOT a product of some obscure conspiracy to bore the hell out of the >spectators ;) (for the record i found none of the above matches to be boring, ok >maybe Gulko v DF was a big 10 on the yawn'o meter) where if those matches had a >different pattern, say humans always won or vice versa i could begin to >understand these stupid conspiracy theories. I believe that the reason for the >drawing pattern (no pun intended) is that it seems to be the best, humans and >computers can get from these matches, mostly humans of course. > >In the case of Gulko v DF and Bareev v Hiarcs, it looks more like fear of >failiure than the wish to draw the match, whereas the other matches it seems >that the fear of failure (and good play by the comp + the programmers seem to >get better at opening preps as the match progresses) occurs when the human loses >it's first game after that, they seem to just want to draw the match and get it >over with, maybe it is human pride, who knows... > >Anyway the truth is, we will never know if g3 would have won in that particular >situation atleast not in our lifetime, we will never know anything for sure in >chess unless it is mate or completely winning (don't take me literally on this, >the point is the important part). > >In conclusion, let's not forget to ASK questions instead of stating "facts", but >then again we are only human ;) > >So what do you think? > >Regards >Jonas
This page took 0.01 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.