Author: KarinsDad
Date: 15:24:14 02/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 1999 at 17:29:39, Matt Frank wrote: > >>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. :-) Oh contraire! (How unfortunate to have your own words used against you) I said good luck and I meant it. I can still cheer for the opposing team (and have my reasons accordingly) and say and mean good luck to 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! :-). 1) No, I have not EVER used a computer against an opponent in any circumstances. I do not know the name of the computer from last night, it was Lord something or other. I could probably look it up, but it disappeared last night before I could go look at it's rating. I think it was about 1780. 2) My current USCF rating is approximately 1575 due to 2 bad tournaments last year (and hence, I am waiting for definitive improvement before playing rated "big money" games again). It has been almost as high as 1800 (just shy) and I can play a solid 1900 game if I can keep my concentration up (I have beaten and drawn several class A players, one as high as 1958, but have not gotten an expert scalp yet, only close once, I did once hold an IM to 25 moves without him winning material, but I resigned at that point since there were no good squares for me to put my pieces on and even I could see the writing on the board, er, wall). My two big problems are that I lose concentration in the middle of a game and my openings suck, so I tend to get into weaker middlegame positions. How about you? I did not see your name on the USCF lists. KarinsDad :) > >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.