Author: Alastair Scott
Date: 04:49:28 08/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2003 at 00:31:37, Mark Young wrote: >On August 03, 2003 at 18:30:50, Lei , Shiann-Tzong wrote: > >> >>I can play a rated game with fritz 8 or junior 8 or Shredder 7 >>and set it to the lowest rating . and win it many times a day . >> >>If you have a rating over 2400 elo , you can post your human vs machine games >>here . >>If not , don't post it . >>I don't belive anyone without a 2400+ rating can defeat computer >>without anyone "Help" . >> >>According to Shredder 7 play in argentina , can support my view-point . > >I agree. > >It is a con job when people post games here showing wins over the top computer >programs. It is easy to cheat and setup a win when the player controls the >computer program and knows the opening book to probe for ways to win with trail >and error. As if a strong human, preparing to play another strong human, would refrain from doing the same thing! (although they wouldn't be posting their discoveries on the Internet ;) If a line in an opening book puts a program in a bad position from which it cannot recover - whether against a significantly weaker player or not - that is as serious a problem as if there were an error in the program code itself. Debugging one is just as important as debugging the other. More interesting than this is where the program is not a "top program" because of unavoidable constraints (for example, it is to be played on a handheld). From my experiences there is still a lot to be learned there. >We see the results from many matches and tournaments now were the top players do >not know the opening book or controls the computer program...The computer wins >or draws more times then it loses even against very strong GM players. But, if they did, there is a fair chance that holes and flaws would be found; it is surprising that such little preparation appears to be done at the moment. (Certainly, in the recent Spanish tournament, there were a few games where the human player seemed almost frightened of the computer and played very passive, unambitious lines). Also, I can't agree with the point that - to quote the limit posted, which was seemingly plucked out of thin air - games played by players of strength less than 2400 against computers are worthless. In some cases they might be considered an affront to the dignity of the programmer (I suggest that is the real, disguised, objection to the "Nemeth discoveries") but they are of value! Alastair
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.