Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:03:12 01/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2004 at 22:52:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 16, 2004 at 19:10:58, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On January 15, 2004 at 11:51:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 15, 2004 at 09:18:20, Grzegorz Sidorowicz wrote: >>> >>>>http://www.geocities.com/maciej_szmit/Turniej_Noworoczny.html >>> >>> >>>30 years ago that would have been interesting. However, in 1981 Cray Blitz >>>entered a tournament with players over 2200, and it won the event with a perfect >>>score (a game vs the highest rated master at the event was published in Chess >>>Life that year). >>> >>>If a computer enters an event with no players over 2200, and _doesn't_ win it, >>>then that is news, of course. :) >> >>This might have been 10-20 year's ago standard. As is, this was a terribly >>interesting post for me, maybe not for you though. >> >>I couldn't care less about Crafty as a human player, it's just too strong. >> >>Robin looks like a cool engine though - that Rzeznik is too strong I knew >>anyway. >> >>And the games were pretty inspiring too . Did anyone else have a look at them ? >> >>Other than WCCC or SSDF, the real tough job, at least for anyone who cares, is >>to provide something that might be interesting for a 1800 or a 2000 player. >>Targetting the 2500 players might be a too narrow road. > >I don't disagree there. And, in fact, it is actually very difficult to write >a program that plays like a 1800-2000 player. IE the program is usually >tactically stronger but positionally weaker than a real 1800-2000 human player. What could we conclude out of this for the known show events. 1. I repeated it since long that a GM takes the money offer and let's look good the machine that is in the actual PR. This is not totally indecent but it is also not ethically in order. 2. If a good GM would play at his normally possible exactness he would make putty out of the actual commercial progs. Just if he could adopt a positional play that is directed against the machine. 3. Of course point 2 would contradict point 1 and therefore we have the fantasy results we actually have. 4. To know this I dont need to be a GM or a computerchess legend either. 5. That computerchess goes for such spectacular show events puts down its original scientific grounds to events like wrestling shows, excuse me. Rolf > >It's an interesting challenge. > >Mike's been playing with this with the "Crafty personality" stuff of course. >And commercial programs have been doing it as well. But any I have tried just >don't feel right, IMHO. > >> >>That computers at their best can beat 2000 players is old news, agreed. >> >>Peter
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.