Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 10:56:20 02/05/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2006 at 13:51:56, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 04, 2006 at 12:58:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 04, 2006 at 10:14:08, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 04, 2006 at 08:55:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 04, 2006 at 04:20:17, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 03, 2006 at 19:29:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 03, 2006 at 17:02:46, Torstein Hall wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 02, 2006 at 17:47:29, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On February 02, 2006 at 07:06:23, Vikrant Malvankar wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Peter Swidler on Computers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2897 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"Chess and computer: what is the interest other than the money? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You mean playing against the computer? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Yes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>For me there is no particular interest. I never have been offered any serious >>>>>>>>>matches, but, in general, I think playing against computers is not very >>>>>>>>>exciting. Computers play so well these days that, to have a chance to win, you >>>>>>>>>have to work very hard – and work hard at things that probably will be counter >>>>>>>>>productive when you play against humans – so it probably will harm your chess a >>>>>>>>>little. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If there is no financial incentive, I don’t see why there is any interest at >>>>>>>>>all. You can try competing with computers at calculation, but this is not very >>>>>>>>>wise, if you want to win. So, basically you have to train in playing closed >>>>>>>>>positions, keeping it as simple and as non-tactical as possible. It is possible >>>>>>>>>but there is not much fun in that. Playing the computer – I mean proper seven >>>>>>>>>hour games – I never saw any attraction in that, apart from money. So I don’t >>>>>>>>>really play against the computers. I use computers, as we all do, for help when >>>>>>>>>analyzing, as a background check. You analyze and have the computer running in >>>>>>>>>the background, to keep your analysis relatively blunder free. And that’s about >>>>>>>>>it. " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You could also say "if there is no financial incentive to beat other humans, I >>>>>>>>don't see why there is any interest at all". It's what being a professional >>>>>>>>means. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Vas >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It must be boring to be professional, if they only ever play for the love of >>>>>>>money. But I can not imagine that is the attitude most professional chess >>>>>>>players has. I even doubt Peter Svidler feel that way... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Torstein >>>>>> >>>>>>If you and Vas speak about it, it cant be off-topic, so please let me >>>>>>participate. I wished you two wouldnt twist what Svidler said. He said that _if_ >>>>>>you weaken your own chess against a computer THEN only the money could be the >>>>>>incentive to play - >>>>> >>>>>If playing against computers paid the bills, then no doubt Mr. Swidler would be >>>>>worried that playing against humans might interfere with his computer-beating >>>>>skills. I don't see anything wrong with this - money is a big source of >>>>>motivation, although for many people it's not the only one. >>>>> >>>>>Vas >>>> >>>>Vas, >>>>I'm a bit astonished that you really insist on your logical failure. Cant you >>>>see that for him (Svidler) the money isnt the main factor but his chess? You >>>>twist his main argument around. You want to add that if he could make a living >>>>out of weakening his chess then he would enjoy doing it? In genral I would say >>>>no from my experience with many people who have that chess vice and who prefer >>>>to live on welfare level but who would never make a normal living even if they >>>>have a certain education. So in general I would say, no, Svidler and all others >>>>would only see their chess. But you could have an argument if for a lot of money >>>>the player would intentionally spend a year or more outside the normal chess >>>>circus just to makemoney against computers. Although I doubt that potentional >>>>Wch candidates would do it other than GM Roman type of guys who have becoming >>>>older, I could still imagine that this would make sense. So, yes, in such rare >>>>cases where someone can make a million dollars he could spend a year of his >>>>normal chess career. Bt all others and only for 10 or 20000 dollars certainly >>>>shouldnt and wouldnt do that. For them chess is their destiny and NOT some >>>>thousands that they well could make in a couple of Opens. >>>>Vas, honestly, it is a bit indecent from your side, to argue this way against >>>>your former collegues when actually you have gone commercial yourself and >>>>certainly couldnt make a single dollar out of your own chess talents anymore. ou >>>>should well know that your GM collegues have at least your own dedication for >>>>their chess but probably even stronger. - Having said that I add that I think >>>>that you know that I found it a bit, well, strange, how you at first made the >>>>present of your first version of Rybka and then overnight went commercial and >>>>then used the same people with their present as new beta-testers after they >>>>bought the second version. It smells a bit, well, "fishy" IMO but then I'm >>>>perhaps a hopeless idealist. :) >>>> >>>>Thanks for being a nice advocat of the devil so far... >>> >>>For some reason you assume that trying to win against humans is more interesting >>>for GM's relative to trying to win against computers. >>> >>>I see no reason for that assumption. >> >>Then I must repeat what Peter told us. Playing a computer is deteriorating one's >>chess. Period. Will you deny that? > >I deny it. >Knowing to play against a computer does not mean forgetting how to play against >humans for super GM's because they have very good memory(otherwise they could >not become super GM's. You deny what Svidler, a super GM, said??? Tough. > >My opinion is that it can cause super GM to be relatively weaker against other >human opponents only because other players learn at the same time effective >tricks against humans when they only learn effective tricks against computers. That was NOT what Svidler said. You simply didnt understand his message. Sorry. > >> >> >>> >>>Note that world champion Emanuel lasker already considered the subjective >>>qualities of his opponent in addition to the objective requirements of his >>>position on the board so the idea of considering the weaknesses of the opponent >>>is not a new idea and I see no reason that GM's will find it more interesting to >>>try to take advantage of the weaknesses of human opponent and not to try to take >>>advantage of the weakness of a computer opponent. >> >>Ok, fine, if you dont see a reason, then I will give you that reason. The reason >>is the difference between human and machine chess. Playing a machine you must >>forcedly play stupid chess. Stupid seen from the perspective of human chess. You >>learn stupid chess. And after a while when you play human chessplayers you cant >>simply change your stupid chess into superior human chess. > >I do not understand the problem. > >Humans can change their choice based on the opponent and if they know that the >opponent is an expert in some theory line not to play that line against him. As I said, you dont get it. A chessplayer is NOT free to adopt any playing style he wants. If that were true we wouldnt have a personality. There is much more psychology in chess than you seem to know. > > > This is basically >>what Svidler meant. He was dead certain on the point! >> >> >> >>> >>>Of course when the money factor support playing against humans then you can >>>expect them to prefer playing against humans but if they can make equal money >>>from playing against computers and from playing against humans(and I am talking >>>about the future and not only about the next year) then I guess that at least >>>part of the strong GM's are going to choose playing against computers. >> >>This wont happen. Not because you cant find such human players but, attention, >>because nobody wants to throw his money into the bin. Uri, didnt you still >>understand it? If human GM would play for years against machines they would make >>putty out of these machines. And with stupid chess alone. > > >I think that it is only a problem of time. > >Maybe today humans can beat the best machines by stupid chess(I am not sure >about that) but both software and hardware get better so we can see if there is >an improvement in the machines. I dont agree. Machines will always have weaknesses. > >Note that even if no human can beat the machines we still can have a champion >who score best against the machines and scoring 40% against the machines may be >enough to be the human world champion against the machines. That wont happen. > > > Because it's very easy >>to find out the actual weaknessed of the machines. So if the GM would make putty >>then no more sponsors. > > >The opposite. > >The reason that we have no sponsors is that sponsors do not believe in the >ability of humans to beat the machines. They are right. Without extended training it's impossible even for super GM. > >We had sponsors in the time that machines were weaker and there was for years >competition of humans against machines until 1997 >Then hsu decided to destroy all the fun by beating kasparov and after that >sponsors do not believe in the ability of humans. > >Uri
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.