Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:13:24 08/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2004 at 05:41:33, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >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 Or maybe different people have different abilities. It is possible that some IM's can also draw every game against kasparov or kramnik but they have serious problems to win against 2300 players. 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.