Author: John Merlino
Date: 23:40:51 05/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2005 at 21:30:37, Mark Ryan wrote: >On May 20, 2005 at 21:11:03, John Merlino wrote: > >>On May 20, 2005 at 19:12:00, Mark Ryan wrote: >> >>>On May 20, 2005 at 17:40:02, jim r uselton wrote: >>> >>>>Let's say a person has access to a time machine and grabs his shredder 7 and >>>>goes back to the year 1924. Let's say,For the sake of argument, he talks his way >>>>in to the great New York Tournament. This guy doesn't know much chess so he lets >>>>his Shredder do all the playing. My question is---where do you think he would >>>>finish, first---fourth---last? >>>> >>>>Thanks for your input! >>>> Jim >>> >>>I think Shredder 7 would win the tournament. However, I have always thought >>>that Emanuel Lasker would have a good chance against even a strong computer >>>program because: >>> >>>1. Capablanca once described Lasker as the best tactician; >>>2. Lasker almost never blundered; >>>3. Lasker had superb control of his nerves; >>>4. Lasker was a great defensive player; >>> >>>All of the above qualities go a long way to neutralizing the computer's >>>advantages against human beings. Moreover, to exploit the computer's weakness: >>> >>>5. Lasker had a profound ability to make moves that other players >>>mis-evaluated. I believe it is a misconception that Lasker deliberately played >>>weak moves that he knew would trouble his particular opponent. I don't think >>>Lasker deliberately played a weak move in his whole life. He played moves that >>>he knew were good, but that his opponent would mistakenly imagine were bad. The >>>classic example is 12.f5 against Capablanca in 1914 (St. Petersburg), which the >>>great Cuban insisted for years afterwards was a weak move, but which is now >>>generally accepted as being a good move. >>> >>>I think Lasker, more than any other player, would have some chance of finding >>>such a move against a program. (But I think we should let him play a full match >>>against the computer, and not just one game :) >>> >>>Mark >> >>FYI, here are the Lasker personality settings in CM 9000 (my apologies if people >>expect a different format for this, I'm just typing them as I see them). >> >>All settings are default except: >>Attacker/Defender = 30 >>Material/Positional = -25 >>Contempt for Draw = 1.0 >>Control of Center = 105 >>King Safety = 90 >>Passed Pawns = 110 >>Queen Value = 8.7 >>Knight Value = 3.3 >> >>Playing style description: Of all the Chessmaster 9000 opponents, the >>Lasker-style will more often play the opponent as much or more than the board. >>This personality is a fabulous defensive player and fine tactician, equally at >>home in open or closed positions. >> >>Enjoy! >> >>jm > >I think we could add "ruthless" to the list. I just played Chessmaster 9000 >Lasker, and he forced to me resign in 16 moves. :) > >Mark Well, I just played the Lasker personality, and after 19 moves found myself in this very unenviable position: [D]5rk1/ppp2rb1/3pp1n1/7q/3nPB2/P1NP2R1/1PPQ1RPP/6K1 w - - 0 20 I resigned three moves later.... :-) jm
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.