Author: James Robertson
Date: 22:28:51 01/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 1999 at 22:43:19, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 25, 1999 at 21:26:28, James Robertson wrote: > >>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 >> >>Cheating...? ? ???? I can think of no human GM who does not adjust his >>play >>depending on his opponent. To say that doing the same thing against a computer >>is cheating is absolutely ludicrous. >> >>James > >I think ludicrous is a little strong. I also think using the word cheating in >this example is also a little strong. There are some differences between a GM >adjusting his play versus a human opponent and versus a computer opponent. > >For one thing, most GMs do not have a strategy that works against all other >GMs. >In fact, they only have a strategy for a select few other GMs that they have >met >often (or they know they will meet at a given tournament). If a random GM shows >up at the tournament, GMs do not usually have anything set up for him (unless >they get time to search their databases). > >On the other hand, there are only a handful of computer programs out there that >are GM quality. A GM would only have to study 6 or 8 of them max. Also, the >anti-computer strategies that work against one program have a fair (obviously >not guaranteed) chance of working against another, especially in the endgame. > >Therefore, if one GM had a strong program making the moves for him, another GM >would have a tougher time playing against him. The same would occur if a GM had >an equal strength, but different style GM making his moves. The GM who was in >the dark may be confused over it. > >This is, of course, all speculation. However, I think that it is easier for a >GM >to play against today's breed of computer programs than it is to play against >either another GM, or someone who had a computer program behind them. For one >thing, sacrifices would have to basically be a sure thing or they would be >doomed. To answer your argument: I think it is only fair for someone to know who their opponent is, as it *will* affect their play. Since this is true, it is not the GM's fault the computer's play is predictible. I.e. Fischer could not declare that his opponents were "cheating" because they prepared specific defenses to his very predictable 1. e4. > >As someone else said, "Imagine Tal sacrificing in a tournament filled with >computers; an ugly sight.". Actually, I said that a few posts higher. :) > >KarinsDad > > [snip]
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.