Author: Laurence Chen
Date: 09:30:33 02/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
Bravo Reynolds, I couldn't have said better myself. :))) All GMs prepare openings against their future GMs before they go and play in a tournament, and why shouldn't Hiarcs 7 do the same. It seems to me that Jeff feels that because of this new opening book will not become available, then he feels that he is being cheated. However, if Hiarcs 7 did not have this feature, then all one would have to do to beat a chess engine is to memorize the games which the engine lost and play that line. So as we can see it is important to have a chess engine whose opening book can be modified, and especially an engine to have the ability to learn. On February 02, 1999 at 09:39:19, Reynolds Takata wrote: >On February 01, 1999 at 23:35:35, Jeff Anderson wrote: > >>I am simply saying that it would be no great feat for this program to win, if it >>is nurtured to face one particular GM, > >I'm sorry you feel this way, Indeed it is a great accomplishment. Your logic >is that by studying over a GM's games and gaining extra additional positional >knowledge will make it weaker against other opponents that's simply not true. > > >when if this same program were to face a >>player inferior to the GM, might do poorer because it has not spent 6 months >>preparing. As I said before, the master section in a large open tournament >>would be a true test of the program's strength in relation to humans. > > >Indeed i would like to see such a match as well, but the result is pretty much >already known. If Dean Hergott an I.M get's taken by a prgram that he has >prepared for, on mchinery that is now somewhat outdated, by a lesser program, >what chance do you think mere masters have? I'm a master, I've drawn a GM once >and beaten an I.M twice over 20 years of chess. I have played Hiarcs enough to >know that if i showed up at a tournament, and had to play Hiarcs well the result >would not be a "natural result" because i wouldn't be playing as i normally play >i would be doing all that i could to make the game a draw. Why, because that's >the best i can do. Any attempt at winning results in Hiarcs7 beating me at the >percentage that a GM should beat a player of my rating. > > >>It is like what Kasparov said about Deep Blue after he lost. He said that Deep >>Blue would get crushed in normal tournament play, because Deep Blue was a >>machine taylored to defeat Gary Kasparov and only Gary Kasparov. > >Well i'm sorry to say, that the simple act of adding accurate and strong >positional information to a program doesn't make it weaker. Further i'm sure if >deep blue was going to play INVITATIONAL tournament chess just like Kasparov, >then Deep blue would prepare for the 10-15 players at the event, just like >Kasparov , had a prepared line and strategy for EVERY opponent at Wijk AAN zee. >> >>Also, how will Hiarcs get to display its true strength, when someone, for >>example, has prepared theory 30 moves deep in GM x's favorite queen's gambit >>line. > > >Memory is part of chess i'm sure you can recall that Kasparov had several games >at this latest tourney where he had prepared opening theory on a the whole game >at home. Further his game against sokolov, was all book until i believe at >least move 24! Yet no one was saying that it wasn't a reflection of their chess >strength. Having a broad knowledge of opening lines is simply apart of Top >flight chess. > >Indeed it could be said if Hiarcs one the match, that it was not due to >>the programs great strength, but to all the preparing humans did before the >>match. > >Well the same could be said of any GM that wins a tourney in that case, because >they all prepare intensly, because to not do so is a disadvantage. If kasparov >showed up at Wijk just planning to win on his own abilities with no preparation >for his opponents, the great one himself would have been much farther down the >charts you can take that to the bank. > >>Jeff
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.