Author: stuart taylor
Date: 07:02:13 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 09:24:35, Bob Durrett wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 08:37:47, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On November 27, 2003 at 08:25:42, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On November 27, 2003 at 04:36:20, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >>> >>>>On November 27, 2003 at 03:06:02, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 27, 2003 at 02:59:36, Gerald Wright wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>The Top players in the computer chess championship are all capable of drawing or >>>>>>winning a match vs Kasparov or them in the top 10. >>>>> >>>>> As long as 2200 ELO players can get a lot of draws >>>>> with safe and boring playing style the best comp >>>>> programs do not have more than 2400 Elo. >>>>> Kurt >>>>What you are saying Kurt does not make sense at all.A 2400 elo player could >>>>not draw Kasaprov under any circumstances.Please check the definition of ELO. >>>>Also your claim of 2200 Elo players getting draws is Contrary to my own private >>>>testing of many many games against 2200 Elo players. >>> >>> >>>Playing computers are _not_ the same as playing Kasparov or _humans_ whatsoever. >>>It is often easy to draw machines as Kurt suggests, winning is far more >>>difficult, unless of course you obtain a large "book" advantage, with the White >>>pieces. >>> >>>I've have found different ways to neuter computers, and so have many here who >>>buy programmes to play against. It's still even quite possible to bring them >>>down with carefully played K-Side attacks. By the time the comp sees it, it's >>>too late. >> >> >>In MY experience, it's not enough to do something before the computer realizes >>it, but that it is VERY CAREFULLY played and worked out, also! >> I've often got into positions where I think there could be a brilliant winning >>attack esp. kingside, but don't know exactly which one way will do it, if there >>IS one way. >>I often try, but it's usually not that one way, or at any rate, atleast one of >>the moves I make is not according to it. >>S.Taylor > >There is a way to produce a score sheet, of a game with a chess engine, where >the human wins. Simply play a game. Then go back to the first mistake and make >another move. Repeat this process as many times as is necessary to get the >desired result. This may not work every time, but it should improve the odds in >favor of the Human. Of course, when you publish the scoresheet, it's best to >conveniently forget to mention the take-backs. : ) > >Although this procedure may look bogus and like "cheating," it may be a good way >to find the weaknesses in the chess-playing program. The final scoresheet >should be useful to the engine programmer [and maybe to the opening book maker.] > I advocate doing this for the sake of improving chess engines. > >Bob D. > >Bob D. That used to beat all engines, but now, even that's not enough. The human would have to do something on the way to a brute force search manually, in order to try and prove his "brilliancy". If you have another computer running at the same time with the same, or a stronger program (hardware?), you can do advanced chess to get the right thing done. Atleast that would be a bit easier. S.Taylor
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.