Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 00:59:30 05/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2003 at 00:54:22, Uri Blass wrote:
>On April 30, 2003 at 19:05:22, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>>On April 30, 2003 at 13:47:23, George Tsavdaris wrote:
>>
>>>On April 30, 2003 at 13:29:09, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>>
>>>>On April 30, 2003 at 12:28:54, WILLIAMS POLK wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Would you give it 2400 elo? Can you still Draw against it like the other
>>>>>engines?
>>>>
>>>> 2400 Elo=yes / second question: so far played no games myself. will
>>>> follow but I think a draw isn't impossible.
>>>> Kurt
>>>
>>>Why do you think that Shredder (7/7.04) is only 2400 elo? According to
>>>the results of Fritz 8 and Junior 8, the elo of the todays strongest
>>>programs is around 2800 on a fast machine of course. Don't you
>>>believe that on a pentium 3 MHz Shredder 7 is at least 2720 elo?
>>>Of course the real question is if <Shredder7+ Pentium X MHz> is 2400 elo.
>>>For example Shredder 7 on a Pentium 80.000 MHz is surely 2800 elo as
>>>chess is not played by Shredder or by pentium but with both of them.
>>
>> It might be that I did not understand the question correctly. I thought it
>> was meant if Shredder7 would [at least] have 2400 Elo and therefore
>> answered with yes. People know my opinion: computer ratings are 200-300
>> points too high, but I do not want to again argue about this. I do simply
>> not understand why it should be possible for 2000-Elo-players to get 2-3
>> draws out of 10 games if the top programs have 2700-2800 Elo.
>
>Maybe it is possible for the same players to do even better against kramnik and
>kasparov in case that these players do not know the opponent and do not try to
>play in a different way against them(for example by avoiding positions with big
>chances for draw).
>
>It is known that GM's often agree to GM draws in 10-20 moves and I think that
>with that style 2000 players have chances to draw against them.
>
> Neither the
>> matches Deep Fritz vs Kramnik nor Deep Junior vs Kasparov have convinced
>> me. Both programs made too often bad moves and only psychological
>> reasons and severe public pressure for the players prevented clear wins
>> in favour of the human beings.
>
>There is another factor that people seem to forget.
>Not winning on purpose in the hope that a draw will make more interest in
>another match.
>
>I think that matches against humans when humans get so much money only for
>losing is a bad idea.
>I think that there is enough circumstances evidence to say that kramnik did not
>win on purpose.
Hi Uri
Do you really think Kramnik was 'cheating'?
Kurt
>
>He did mistakes that even 2000 players are going to feel bad to do them
>giving a piece by 1 ply mistake and resigning in position with practical
>chances.
>
>The try of kramnik to justify his decision by saying that he thinks that
>objectively he is losing(I was not convinced about it) is absurd because chess
>is a practical game and you should resign only when you are sure that there are
>no practical chances.
>
>It is always better to resign too late than to resign too early and if there is
>a doubt you should continue.
>
>If you see that you lose material then the next trivial question is if there is
>a chance for a fortress or a stalemate combination and only if you see that
>there is no chance then you should resign(if you are in time trouble and has not
>time to calculate it then you should continue).
>
>I think that it should be obvious for 2800 players.
>
>Uri
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.