Author: Howard Exner
Date: 22:17:32 01/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 1999 at 19:19:22, Reynolds Takata wrote: >On January 25, 1999 at 18:36:40, Howard Exner wrote: > >>On January 25, 1999 at 15:59:07, James Robertson wrote: >> >>>On January 25, 1999 at 14:04:39, Reynolds Takata wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>A few months ago, a poster named Gram or Graham can't remember, said that Fritz >>>>5.32 playing anonymously could score the GM norm, well it turns out he was >>>>right. >>>> >>> >>>Not necessarily. Humans play a lot of moves against other humans they would >>>*never* play against a computer. >> >>I remember Shawn's thread and that was his point. That if the computer >>had some disguise (human cheater) then humans would play it as if >>they were playing a human. All the anti-computer play would not occur, >>as you have just said. So the computer playing anonymously would give >>the machine an advantage in the sense of stripping computer savy opponents >>of their arsenal of tricks. > > >I just got an email from Shaun about the post, he thanked me for posting it, but >said that his real point was that Computers are Grandmaster "strength" against >regular "human play", though against anti-computer play not necessarily so. He >went on to say was that anti-computer play was a "sort" of cheating against >computers. He gave an example of giving a weaker player(competent and strong >still though) a detailed description of all of Deep Blues weakneses that might >be garnered from a log of a 1000 DB vs DB games. Deep blue would have no option >to change its nature or change as a human would. More to the point he said >"imagine that the human cheater(disguised comp), not necessarily ina tournament >sat down before 10 grandmasters for a 40/2 on ten different days(unbeknownst to >the GM's), the comp might defeat all of the GM's or the majority. So how could >one say that the comp isn't GM strength". What can be said is that in a tourney >a computer is often at a disadvantage, because his opponent knows the computer, >but the computer doesn't know anything about the opponent(a disparity). Both >Chessbase(nixdorf classic), and Rebel(anand match) understood this, and >attempted to make their programs play openings that their opponents had >previously had difficulty with. The result of giving the comp knowledge of the >specific opponent gave Fritz a HUGE success. I believe this is also one of the >main reasons for Anands defeat in the blitz match. If not his defeat, at least >his getting BLOWN OUT. I'm certain giving comps knowledge about how to avoid >certain types of positions(which is already being done), will incerase comp vs >human scores considerably(even though by my count they seem to be practically >winning now anyway). All this is by the comp is an attempt to "Accentuate the >possitives in their game" and cover up the weaknesses by playing for what they >like. Humans do this everyday in chess. No one who hates open positions, being >down material and attacking is going to play the Ruy Marshall. Hey i'm tired of >writing :). > >R. Takata >USCF Life Master Shawn's hypothetical, what if a person used a computer so as to make the human opponents think that they were playing a computer, has strangely turned into a real event, as your initial thread has reminded us. Most humans definitely adjust their style when they play against a computer. What was the eventual performance rating of the cheater? Maybe the cheater will claim he was abducted by Fritz in a kind of "Outer Limits" theme :) >> >>>Imagine Tal sacrificing in a tournament filled >>>with computers; an ugly sight. >>> >>>Also, we have no clue what the hardware was. >> >>Yes, that would be usefull info in knowing the hardware speed. >>> >>>James >>> >>>> >>>>>The German Newsmagazine "Der Spiegel" today reports a funny story: Mr. >>>>>Allwermann, an Elo 1925 amateur of age 55 has won a nine-round 2h/40 swiss >>>>>tournament and achieved a performance of 2630. >>>>> >>>>>Organizers and competitors got somewhat suspicious when the guy announced a mate >>>>>in eight in the decisive final round game against grandmaster Kalinichev! >>>>> >>>>>"Der Spiegel" writes that Mr. Allwermann's moves are reproducible with >>>>>Fritz5.32. While nobody understands how he has done it, there are rumours that >>>>>he formerly worked in the 'electronics business'. Moreover the German chess >>>>>magazine "Schachmagazin 64" not only points out the fantastic attacking >>>>>combinations but also some typical Fritz 'no-clue' moves like Bf4 in a closed >>>>>French Winawer as White. >>>>> >>>>>Seems like we will need airport-type security checks in tournaments in the >>>>>future. >>>>> >>>>>Jürgen
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.