Author: Matt Frank
Date: 14:29:39 02/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
>If that were the case, then Hiarcs 7 should be started in "analyze this >particular GM" mode and left to it's own devises. I have no problem with that. >Oh, you mean that mode does not exist and that Matt will have to use the opening >book to tweak the program's opening book? >The experiment is flawed. >Matt can only tweak Hiarc based on previous games by the GM. Oh contraire, Hiracs can analyze its own losses against machines and humans, as well as wins (not just against a particular GM) >If the GM takes this really seriously, he has several advantages over a tweaked >Hiarcs 7. GM Advantages: >1) The GM can use Hiarcs 7 to analyze his own games and find where Hiarcs >"thinks" the GM has flaws and correct them accordingly. Hence, the GM could if >he wanted to, create a similar opening book to what Matt will create. True enough. >2) The GM can play dozens of normal time games vs. Hiarcs 7 and hundreds of >faster games to determine Hiarcs' playing style and weaknesses. True enough >3) The GM can analyze games from SSDF that Hiarcs has played against other >computers. Yes and.... >4) The GM can look at Hiarcs' logs to determine what it "thinks". True enough. >5) If the GM finds a set of lines which lead to a loss for Hiarcs in standard >times, Hiarcs has a high probability of playing thoses lines during the >tournament if it can be led into them in the opening. An example of this may be >games from the SSDF. True enough. >The experiment proves nothing more than whether the GM prepares enough to win. >The win of any game is non-deterministic, but the win of the match should be >guaranteed IF he takes the 5 steps above and seriously prepares. Not necessarily. Hiarcs will be prepared somewhat differently by different people. Therefore, I would expect that the analysis done by Hiarcs by me would be diff then by you or the GM for example (I will reveal the specific perparation undertaken, only at the end of the match!!!). Therefore, I suggest that the GMs prep may be insufficient to meet the challenges presented on the game days. >Matt's contention is that the program should be capable of defeating the GM. >This contention is probably only valid if either both parties would have been >kept in the dark as to their opponent, or if the GM does not properly prepare >for the match. True; partially true; definitely true. >I hope the GM wins all of the games, just to show that this type of experiment >is flawed. Oh, now you show that you didn't really mean what you said when you said GOOD LUCK!!! How unfortuanate to have your own words used against you. :-) >This is more of an experiment of whether Matt can outwit the GM with preparation >than whether Hiarcs 7 can beat the GM. >KarinsDad This is a simplistic interpretation. The GM would kick my ass without Hiarcs (although I am working on a Ph. D in social psychology I can only claim to be a strong club player 1750-1850 USCF). I notice people are reluctant to post their unassisted chess ratings? Since you beat a computer last night could you tell us what it was (the computer), what your rating is (USCF otr FIDE), and whether you used a computer yourself last night! :-). Matt Frank
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.