Author: Chris Carson
Date: 05:02:06 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. 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 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.