Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:12:38 11/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 21:21:50, stuart taylor wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 10:43:21, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>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." : ) > >Then he might find good use for a Mackintosh! LOL! I mean, if you know your bible! S.Taylor >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.