Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 07:43:21 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 10:02:13, stuart taylor wrote: >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 I like your "advanced chess" idea but it would be necessary for the human [better if a GM] to guard against being too much influenced by the other engine [his partner]. That engine will, necessarily, suggest "computer moves." If the human is not wary, he/she will fall into the trap of "buying into" the computer's suggestions. It's sort of like a Satan and Eve situation, where the chess engine plays the role of Satan and the human plays the role of Eve. If the human is not careful, he may eat a "poisoned apple." : ) There is another problem I thought of since posting my bulletin. The hash table contents will be unknown to the programmer and that may cause some confusion. Perhaps a very carefully controlled experiment could provide the missing information. It might be best to keep pondering off, or maybe erase the hash tables before each engine move. [Unclear to me.] Bob D.
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.