Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 13:24:08 12/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 1998 at 15:05:06, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: >On December 14, 1998 at 14:12:52, Laurence Chen wrote: > >>To all chess collectors, >>Are you people chess players or just players who like to collect the best engine >>available for the cheapest price? In my previous posting, I wrote about my >>findings in the CM engine, and it seems that I drew a lot of hot-headed people >>who felt that their prize collection was under attack. I presented games and >>positions to support my findings, and asked anyone to prove me wrong. So far no >>one from the CM club stepped up to the challenge. If you guys want to believe >>that CM is infallible and that is like the pope, then let me present this >>problem, in a two car race between a Jeep and a Ferrari which car would win the >>race? Think about it this problem. I bet you that all Ferrari lovers will say >>that their car is the fastest, and it should win the race no problem at all. >>Really I say !!! Guess what, sorry to disappoint you Ferrari lovers, you are >>wrong, the Jeep will beat your car, although your car is the fastest. How is >>that possible you may ask? Did the Jeep had a stronger tuned engine which is >>faster than the Ferrari? NO !!! The Jeep did not have any hidden super engine, >>so the Jeep did not cheat. So how is the Jeep able to beat the Ferrari then if >>the Ferrari is the fastest car. Think about it, it is what I being saying my >>past posting. I was hoping for an intellectual discussion of chess in this BBS, >>to my disappointment, I only got a bunch of hot aired opinions. So, my fellow >>chessplayers, and to those who addicts to collect chess engines, I won't make >>any more posting since my posting have been viewed with such anti-thesis. Well >>going back to the two car race, the Jeep and the Ferrari, let me tell you that >>the Jeep won the race fair and square, no cheating involved at all. The answer >>to the question I proposed is a very simple one, very elementary, IT CANNOT BE >>ANSWERED, NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION !!! This may be shocking to some of you, yes, I >>wanted to make you think about, I purposely omitted to give enough information >>about the problem, and if we think about, the Ferrari is indeed faster than the >>Jeep, no question, and if the race was run in a smooth terrain, like a freeway, >>then the Ferrari would lick the Jeep no sweat. However, I did not say what type >>of terrain the race was going to be run. If the terrain is not smooth like a >>road, but a rugged road, full of potholes, rocks, mud holes, fallen trees, and >>other obstacles, the Jeep will definitively beat the Ferrari no sweat. So how >>this apply to chess engines, like I said in my previous post, you must know the >>engine strengths and weaknesses, and to use only one engine in all type of chess >>positions is a wrong approach, because not all engines are equal, some will play >>best in simple positions, others in complex and dynamic positions, then applying >>the proper engine to the proper chess position is important. Therefore, CM is >>not an universal engine, like some of you proclaimed that CM would evaluate all >>chess positions correctly. The truth is it cannot, I've seen positions which CM >>gave the wrong evaluation. And the reply I get is that, yeah but, other engines >>also evaluate some chess positions which CM got right. My point exactly, no >>engine is capable of doing everything right. Have you ever studied the games >>which your engine won the games and asked the question why, or better, what type >>of position they reached in order to win? With this last thought I leave you >>people to your nice BBS and hopefully calm and tranquility will return to your >>passive posting of collecting games and chess engines. > >Yes well a boat can beat both of them. So where do you get off insulting Peoples >intelligence? What you show a whole couple of positions and this is going to >take away from what everyone knows about the King engine which is also described >in your cm manual what type of engine it is which I play against and know what >type of engine it is and other Master rated players play against and have said >it Also the reviews it has received so were all suspose to just believe what you >think or were just chess collectors? there you go jumping to conclusions again >A post by F.Jermann told you of a sac that was made in a blitz game and you >respond by critisising his Blitz game?!! What the heck is that? How do you think >your blitz games would look when ive watched GMs make horrible 1move blunders >under time trouble you think what by critising his game this makes you supior >player? I never claimed to be the superior player, God forbid. It is my interest to search for chess truth. Of course I am aware that in Blitz games blunders will occur more often so what is your point. I am not trying to insult anyone, I just wanted to point out the mistakes, so how else can one improve if one does not learn from past mistakes. Unless, you feel it is okay to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, which I presume that no one wants to do that. I posted some chess positions in the past to stimulate a discussion of the limitations of chess engines, and that one should not be blind to think that his or her favorite engine is the one which will provide all the answers. Mind you I know the limitations and weaknesses of Fritz 5.16 and Junior 5.0, and because of my awareness of their weaknesses I won't use these engines in certain chess positions because I believe that they will not provide the best answer, I would use instead CM because I noticed that its evaluation of such type of position to be more correct. I have no favoritism towards any engine, I use them to help me to study and learn more about this intellectual game. Why would a lot of GM study the games of their opponents? They do so to learn the strengths and weakness of their opposition, so that they can prepare when they meet. Chess is war, and the best prepared general will win the war. I can beat Fritz, Junior and CM 6000, in regular tournament control because I know their deficiences, so what! It does not make me a GM, and I have seen other players beat their engines too. I dream of one day reaching the highest accolade in chess, the GM title, and I use several engines to help me study chess positions. My goal in this past posting was to break away from the idle chatting of which engine is strongest or best. I thought that this BBS would be a great place to start discussion of chess position and hopefully everyone could learn from these chess position and become a better player. The engine ratings cannot be translated to the owner of the engine. Therefore it would be more productive in discussing ways or methods in using the chess engines to help us gain a better understanding of the game, and I am sure that the chess programmers which read these posting will find that such discussion will help them improve their chess engine.
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.