Author: Mark Young
Date: 09:12:45 08/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 1999 at 04:34:15, Ed Schröder wrote: >On August 15, 1999 at 04:02:44, Mark Young wrote: > >>On August 15, 1999 at 01:36:03, Terry Ripple wrote: >> >>>On August 14, 1999 at 23:32:52, Pete Galati wrote: >>> >>>>On August 14, 1999 at 22:22:24, odell hall wrote: >>>> >>>>>CCC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is starting to look as if Computers Lack the creativity to defeat the >>>>>grandmasters, Most of the 40/2 games between GM's and computers have been draws. >>>>> Apparently the longer time controls are nullifying the computers main strenghs >>>>>which is tactics. I expect to see even more draws in the future as more contest >>>>>are arranged. Many grandmasters will not take the neccessary rick to defeat the >>>>>computers, The defensive abilities of the machine is it's second greates >>>>>strength. I believe that based on the 10 40/2 games played so far the computers >>>>>have clearly demonstrated Grandmaster strength. For those who will claim that >>>>>because computers have not beaten the grandmasters, that the computers are not >>>>>grandmasters, Remember one can say the same of grandmasters inability to defeat >>>>>the computers, I think though more games will certainly help in clarifying the >>>>>issue ultimately. I don't know about anyoneelse but I am impressed that rebel >>>>>could draw two grandmasters in a row! >>>> >>>>I havn't been following those games but it sounds like probably a clear >>>>demonstration of the fact that Chess programs calculate moves but don't think. >>>>But that's just a running problem. >>>> >>>>I've been trying to run a match between 2 primative programs, SCP and TSCP (very >>>>tedious). Admittedly TSCP has been modified to search to 5ply and SCP is stock. >>>>But it's very aggrivateing because in the first game TSCP had clearly won the >>>>game, and SCP was able to pull off a repetition draw. If TSCP could think, that >>>>wouldn't have happened, there would have been a pawn promotion, but it turned >>>>into a draw. The second game, exact opposite, another draw. >>>> >>>>Of course what you're talking about is much more impressive software, but to a >>>>large extent, I see the problem as being the same. >>>> >>>>Pete >>> >>> >>> I believe that more draws are happening because of the style which some grand- >>>masters are using against the tactical monsters! >>> >>>Terry >> >> >>I don't mind the draw in this game. Rebel had black, and Rohde's looked hard and >>used a lot of time in trying to break down Rebels defense, and came away with >>nothing. I do think Rebel had a more aggresive line he could have played at the >>end of the game, but it is not clear it was winning except it could have force >>Rohdes to lose on time or blunder, as he was very short on time. >> >>I think Rebel is on the right track now...and is playing some strong chess, but >>it is still a bit passive at times. > >The SLAV-defence leaves you no other choice than to defend. This is something >else than playing passive. The SLAV-defence has been tried many times at Aegon >and was very successful. It is a rock-solid choice. I understand the opening choice of Rebel, and I thought it played the correct moves. In fact it outplayed Rhodes and had a bit of an advantage, I wish Rebel would have tried 28..Ra4. Not that it was better then what Rebel played, but this move was a bit more active and would have given Rohdes more trouble in his time pressure. I know the upmost respect must be given to the Grandmaster you are playing, but IMO you took the draw to early. I understand why Rohodes kept asking for a draw:), but you should have held out longer before giving the draw. > >Ed Schroder
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.