Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 02:41:33 08/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2004 at 05:07:35, Uri Blass wrote:
>On August 01, 2004 at 03:49:18, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>>On August 01, 2004 at 03:02:49, Petr Kiriakov wrote:
>>
>>>Kurt, I dont think so.
>>>
>>>I dont think you understand what does "chess style" mean at all.
>>>I always play the normal style, regular openings, no dull stonewalls.
>>>I managed to get advantage in 3 games of 6 played, but won only 1.
>>
>> You must have misunderstood what I wanted to say. It's true
>> you have always played your normal style vs computers and
>> I very much like your games. Below a summary of my collected
>> games vs computers on my harddisk. You can indeed be proud
>> about the score you have got so far ... and what a pity, in
>> some games you managed to get (almost) decisive advantage but
>> could not realize a win. My "theory" however is that no GM
>> and/or IM would ever lose a game vs computer (of course: no
>> rule without an exception) if they would adopt a very safe
>> and boring playing style, no dynamic positions, static pawn
>> structure, exchanging pieces whenever this can be done
>> without trouble and so on. This dull strategy does sometimes
>> even work with players of 1900-2200 Elo. Of course: nobody is
>> interested in such games when the strong GM/IM's would from
>> time to time win some games vs computers by simply exploiting
>> their better chess knowledge. Under such circumstances, the
>> Elo rating of the top programs would considerably drop.
>
>
>I am interested to see humans do the best that they can and I do not think that
>GM's or IM's are playing in order to make interesting games for the spectators.
Agreed Uri: human do normally the best they can, they do not
play for the spectators. But "to do what they can" is not
enough vs computers. A player liking to go for complications
may succeed vs other humans but badly lose vs computers. It's
just a complete other approach when playing computers and
humans have not [yet] learned to handle this.
Kurt
>
>I do not believe in your theory that IM's or GM's can avoid losing by the
>strategy that you suggest otherwise they could score at least 50% against
>computers in the israeli league(Arnold hasidovski with rating near 2200 drew 3
>games against computers but GM vitali golud(I apologize if I mispell his name
>but I have no time to check it now) lost against Rebel and did not win other
>games against computers and the games were important for the teams that could
>choose the human to play against the computer so my conclusion is that even if
>there are IM's who can practically draw or win every game against computers(I do >not know) then there are still IM's and GM's who simply cannot do it.
The question however remains: why some IM's and GM's can and others
can't do it? Because they have never tried hard enough. To be a slave
to one's habits: that's the problem I think.
Kurt
>
>Uri
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.