Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 06:42:49 03/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 2003 at 03:56:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 23, 2003 at 20:03:15, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On March 23, 2003 at 12:06:23, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On March 23, 2003 at 11:51:52, Peter Berger wrote: >>> >>>>On March 23, 2003 at 04:17:22, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 23, 2003 at 02:38:31, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 22, 2003 at 23:15:19, Lyn Harper wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On March 22, 2003 at 13:17:48, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On March 22, 2003 at 13:16:46, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>><snipped> >>>>>>>>>The only reason to make them weaker relative to humans is simply to change the >>>>>>>>>rules of the game. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Should be the only way to nake them... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>> >>>>>>I see that I made a mistake in my correction (make and not nake) >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But is'nt this just inventing ways to delay the inevitable? The programs are >>>>>>>just getting stronger while the humans are'nt. Accept it. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you change the rules humans will be relatively stronger and after the delay >>>>>>you can change the rules again. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that humans also can learn to be stronger in normal chess thanks to >>>>>>computers. >>>>>> >>>>>>I agree that in every static game computers are going to win after enough time >>>>>>and this is exactly the reason to change the rules. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>So we have a game the rules of which are that humans must be able to >>>>>win....bizarre. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Frank >>>> >>>>Why is that bizarre? It's just a little early now but some day some kind of >>>>rules will be needed to make man-machine matches interesting as the silicon will >>>>be too strong for equal competition. >>>> >>>>Obviously there are two ways this can be done: >>>> >>>>a.) limitting the computer power and ressources >>>> >>>>I like this approach most. Will there be a day when a program on a current >>>>Pocket PC or Palm can compete with human top players? That's a very long way to >>>>go still. >>>> >>>>b.) adapting the rules >>>> >>>>Maybe the easy and old approach of playing with uneven material is nicest here. >>>>That's a little similar to Go. How long until a program can win against top >>>>players with a knight less? >>> >>>Never >>> >>>I believe that even god is going to lose against the top humans >>>and even against 2600 GM's with a knight odd. >>> >>>Uri >> >>I think you underestimate God - he would have a few additional advantages, for >>example he could read his opponents' minds. >> >>Seriously - I don't think knight's odds is something that can't be overcome with >>extremely deep searches at some time. Or if it is, make it one or two pawns >>instead. >> >>This year Mr Ingo Althoefer did a few experiments playing chessprogrammers and a >>few strong players in odds games with the help of an engine. He seemed to do OK. >>Maybe like 2100 level. >> >>That's were chessengines were 25 years ago, too. I don't see the principle >>difference. >> >>Let's assume we played a corresponcence game and I gave you knights odds but >>earned the right to use a chessengine where you could only use your own mind. I >>would be pretty confident to win or at least I bet you would have a very hard >>time. > >I believe that I can win a game in these conditions. >I do not think that it going to be easy but I am not a GM. > >I also think that knight is equal more elo at the high level and even at 2000 >level at 120/40 it equals many hundreds of elo. > >Computer may have chances against GM's with knight odd only in blitz. > >Uri No way, I played three 5 min test blitz games against the top programs Fritz 8.008 and Shredder 7.04 (both playing without Nb1) on Athlon 2200+ with the black pieces and won three times in a row. My level is 2300 and I am really not especially strong in blitz. I claim to win at least 9:1 against any top program in a ten games match with these conditions. A Grandmaster should do even better. To win a correspondence game with a piece up is of course no problem at all. Michael Fritz 8 - Drexel 1.Nf3 c5 2.c3 d5 3.d4 cxd4 4.cxd4 Nf6 5.e3 Nc6 6.Ne5 e6 7.Bd2 Qb6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bc3 Bb4 10.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 11.Qd2 Qxd2+ 12.Kxd2 Ne4+ 13.Ke1 Bd7 14.Bd3 0-0 15.Ke2 a5 16.Rhc1 Rfb8 17.Rc2 h6 18.b3 Kf8 19.Rb1 Ke7 20.g3 Kd6 21.f3 Nf6 22.f4 Ne4 23.Kf3 f5 24.Ke2 Rb6 25.Rg1 h5 26.Bxe4 dxe4 27.h3 Rh8 28.Rc4 Rb4 29.Rgc1 Rxc4 30.Rxc4 Rb8 31.Kd2 Rb5 32.Kc3 Bc8 33.a4 Rb6 34.Rc5 Ra6 35.Kd2 Bd7 36.Kc3 Be8 37.Kc2 Bf7 38.Kc3 Kc7 39.h4 Kb6 40.b4 axb4+ 41.Kxb4 Kc7 42.Rc3 Rb6+ 43.Ka5 Rb1 44.Ra3 Kb7 45.Rc3 Be8 46.Ra3 Bd7 47.Ra2 Rb3 48.Re2 c5 49.dxc5 Kc6 50.Rg2 Kxc5 51.Rc2+ Kd6 52.Rd2+ Ke7 53.Ra2 Rxe3 54.Kb4 Rxg3 55.a5 Bc6 56.a6 Rf3 57.a7 Rxf4 58.a8R Bxa8 59.Rxa8 Rxh4 60.Kc3 Kf6 61.Rf8+ Ke5 62.Rg8 Rg4 0-1 Fritz 8 - Drexel 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 Bd6 5.Bb5+ Bd7 6.Bd3 Qe7 7.c3 c5 8.Bxd6 Qxd6 9.Ne5 0-0 10.0-0 Bc6 11.f4 Ne4 12.Qh5 f5 13.Rf3 Nd7 14.Rh3 Ndf6 15.Qh4 b5 16.Bxe4 dxe4 17.Qg5 cxd4 18.Rg3 Ne8 19.exd4 Bd5 20.a3 a5 21.Rc1 Ra7 22.Re3 Qe7 23.Qxe7 Rxe7 24.Rce1 Nd6 25.Kf2 a4 26.R3e2 Nc4 27.Nxc4 Bxc4 28.Re3 Kf7 29.Rd1 Ke8 30.Ree1 Rg8 31.Ke3 g5 32.fxg5 Rxg5 33.Rd2 Reg7 34.g3 Ke7 35.Kf4 Kd6 36.Rf2 Rg4+ 37.Ke3 h5 38.Kd2 h4 39.gxh4 Rxh4 40.h3 Rg3 41.Kd1 Rhxh3 42.d5 Bxd5 43.Kc1 Ke5 0-1 Shredder 7.04 - Drexel 1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd2 Bf5 4.c4 c6 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Bb5+ Nc6 7.Qa4 Bd7 8.Nf3 e6 9.0-0 Bd6 10.Qb3 Qb6 11.Bc3 Ne4 12.Rab1 0-0 13.Qa4 a6 14.Be2 Ne5 15.Qc2 Nxf3+ 16.gxf3 Nxc3 17.bxc3 Qc7 18.Bd3 f5 19.f4 Rfc8 20.Qb3 Bb5 21.Bxb5 axb5 22.Qxb5 Rxa2 23.Rfc1 Ra7 24.Rb3 Qc6 25.Qf1 Ra3 26.Rcb1 Rxb3 27.Rxb3 Ra8 28.Qb1 Ra7 29.Qb2 h6 30.h3 Bc7 31.h4 b6 32.Kg2 Qa8 33.Qe2 Ra3 34.Rxa3 Qxa3 35.Qb5 Qe7 36.h5 Kf7 37.c4 dxc4 38.Qxc4 Qd6 39.f3 Bd8 40.Qa4 Be7 41.Qc2 Qb4 42.d5 Qd6 43.Qb1 Qxd5 44.Qxb6 Qd2+ 45.Kh3 Qd6 46.Qa7 Qd1 47.Kg2 Qe2+ 48.Kg3 Qe1+ 49.Kg2 Qh4 50.Qd7 Qxh5 51.Qa7 Qg6+ 52.Kh2 h5 53.Qa2 h4 54.Qf2 Qg3+ 55.Qxg3 hxg3+ 56.Kxg3 Bc5 57.Kf2 Kf6 58.Ke2 Ke7 59.Kd3 Kd6 60.e4 g6 61.Ke2 Bd4 62.Kd3 Kc5 63.exf5 gxf5 64.Ke2 Kc4 65.Ke1 Kd3 66.Kf1 Ke3 67.Kg2 Ke2 68.Kg3 Bf2+ 69.Kg2 Bh4 70.Kh3 Kxf3 71.Kxh4 Kxf4 72.Kh3 e5 73.Kg2 e4 74.Kf2 Ke5 75.Ke1 f4 76.Ke2 f3+ 77.Ke3 Kf5 78.Kf2 Kf4 79.Kf1 e3 80.Ke1 Kg3 81.Kf1 Kh2 82.Ke1 Kg1 83.Kd1 f2 84.Ke2 f1Q+ 85.Kxe3 Qf5 86.Kd4 Kf2 87.Kc4 Qe5 88.Kb4 Qd5 89.Kc3 Ke2 90.Kc2 Qd4 91.Kb3 Qc5 92.Ka4 Qb6 93.Ka3 Qb5 94.Ka2 Qb4 95.Ka1 Kd2 96.Ka2 Kc2 97.Ka1 Qb2# 0-1
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.