Author: Swaminathan
Date: 04:48:44 11/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2005 at 05:27:34, A. Steen wrote: >On November 25, 2005 at 03:27:08, vladan wrote: > >>Dear Mr. Steen, >> >>Nice game, > > > >Just a cruise, hardly a game. More of a game than the "Father" "games" is all I >will claim. > > > >>but irrelevant to conclude “…Fruit is much weaker against reasonable >>humans than it is against other engines…” > > > >Almost any conclusion based on a _single_ game would be absurd. > >Since I am not absurd, my conclusion must be and is based on many games I have >played vs Fruit (not engine-engine games, human-engine games). > > > >>The generalization like that could be made only after statistical researching >>and correlation on many hundreds or thousand games. > > >No, we humans are able to get a semi-reliable feel or a smell earlier than >"hundreds". 40-50 games gives the feeling reliably enough when one is playing >the machine oneself! Humans are good pattern-detectors, much superior to >computers in this. (Also imaginary-pattern detectors, but that is another >thing. :) ). > >Engine vs engine is another phenomenon, as there one is only an observer, not in >the fight - one's observations are less intense. The "feel" does not come into >it so quickly. > >By your reasoning no strong human player should have a "feel" opinion about any >other strong human player, as no super-GM has played "hundreds or thousand >games" against that same opponent. Even the old lovers Kasparov and Karpov with >their 5 matches have not crossed 200 standard t.c. games. But do you think >they do not know the other's style VIS-A-VIS THEMSELVES perfectly well enough to >have opinions? > >Remember, my opinion (you presented only a part of it) is personal to me. _I_ >find Fruit easier to defeat than I find Shredder or Brothers Fritz. Smebody who >is a tactical super-player but strategically a bit weaker might have the >opposite experience to mine. > >Here is what I think is the main point - *YOU* may have misread what I wrote. > >I did *NOT* write - > "Fruit is weak against reasonable humans" > >What I *DID* write - > "Fruit is much weaker against reasonable humans than it is against other >engines" > >Of course all statements of strength are relativistic, and the latter statement >(what I actually wrote and believe, unlike the first statement, which I never >made, do not think and which is ridiculous - Fruit on a modern PC will destroy, >no annhilate and dismember, most <2500 players in head-to-head games) is >particularly relativistic. > >Because Fruit is so deadly against other engines (here I credit Fruit with >almost all credit from the new Toga's results, too, as they managed to follow >the footsteps from Fruit 2.1 to 2.2), that sets a very high bar for it to meet >vs humans and still be comparable. Remember, Fruit is defeating S9 and F9 with >55% and 60%, and those S9/F9 I am sure would defeat almost every single one of >the "geniuses" who have insulted me on CCC with % scores of 90% or more. :) > > > >:: snip your obvious point about the opening; in the original post I already >said the game start was "controversial" but some people didn't seem to >understand that term. The point - yet again - is that ruit never once managed or >tried to introduce poison or complications in the game, and gave me a cruise >that S9/F9 would not have. > > > >>In my opinion Fruit is bad player in closed, strategic positions, it likes open >>lines (evaluation function!). > > > >This is an unhelpful comment as it applies to F9 and S9 and J9 and ... also. > > >>In most open and semi open positions its power >>rises extremely and in that type of games it could beet everyone. > > >Same again, this does not discriminate Fruit from the rest. > >Let me make similarly useful statements - > >The sky is sometimes blue. > >Dogs bark. > >Cows give milk. > >etc. > >:) > > > >>Try, after your 1. e4 to force Fruit to play 1…e5, or 1…c5 and then >>continue to play normally. I am not sure that you will be able to repeat such a >>nice and relax game. >> >>Good luck against bitter lemon, and best regards. >> >>Vladan Vuckovic > > > >I do have many exciting and even hair-raising games against Fruit (and others) >but they can wait for the book. :) The game I put there illustrates as well as >any single game could illustrate that Fruit did not seek complications and >poison the well but (not oblivious but aware of what was happening) just sailed >on to oblivion (when S9/F9 would not have). I succeeded in what I attempted. > >By the way, your user profile is blank. If you leave your profile blank here, >it is an invitation to the numerous trolls and abusive patzers (I do not at all >mind non-abusive patzers, and for me "patzers" is not an insulting term - but >here the patzers even boast about their FIDE ratings!) to attack and libel you. >I speak from terrifying personal experience! :) Excuse me,I never attacked you and I never mentioned my own FIDE rating.I just asked you what your rating is because your profile is incomplete. If you are referring to someone,tell me who it is? There are probably less posters here who have FIDE ratings. >Best, > >A.S.
This page took 0.01 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.