Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 02:21:09 10/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 1999 at 05:10:30, blass uri wrote: >On October 16, 1999 at 01:35:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 16, 1999 at 00:56:33, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On October 15, 1999 at 23:38:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 15, 1999 at 16:11:23, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 16:00:08, James Robertson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 15:38:11, James T. Walker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 15:25:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 15:08:59, odell hall wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 15:00:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 13:25:17, Howard Exner wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Anyone have the scoop on this re-match? Watching the one game on the rebel page >>>>>>>>>>>but how are the other three games unfolding? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Rebel won 1 game, lost 2, and drew 1. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unfortunately a very disapointing result for Rebel, I bet your real happy! I >>>>>>>>>don't know what these two losses mean , since the I'ms are very strong and >>>>>>>>>capable of beating any grandmaster on any given day. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>_I_ happen to be pulling for the computer in every game. But I am realistic >>>>>>>>in my expectations of the outcome. This result wasn't bad. 1.5 vs 2.5 for >>>>>>>>4 IM players in 4 40/2hr games is not a bad result. It is right in line with >>>>>>>>what I would expect/hope for myself. 2-2 would have been very good. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Honestly Bob, >>>>>>>This is a disappointing performance by Rebel. Considering it's past performance >>>>>>>vs GMs/IMs. But it also is to be expected. Human IM's/GM's also have bad >>>>>>>results occasionally. Only the overall performance is what matters. In that >>>>>>>respect it is still doing very good. I think we should not lose sight of the >>>>>>>fact that this type of "Challenge" will show the computers in the worst >possible light. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why? >>>>>> >>>>>>>There can be no doubt that computers playing in a 4 round swill style >>>>>>>system or even in a round robin tournament would do much better than what we >>>>>>>will see in this format. It will not give us the "Rating" we are looking for >>>>>>>unless the worst case rating is what you're trying to establish. >>>>>>>Jim Walker >>>>>> >>>>>>I disagree. It does not seem obvious to me that Rebel would do better in a >>>>>>tournament, and there is no evidence to suggest this. >>>>>> >>>>>>James >>>>> >>>>>The simple fact is that in a tournament the players are not prepared only >>>>>against one player. >>>>> >>>>>There is another reason to assume Rebel would do better in a tournament >>>>> >>>>>The reason is very simple: >>>>>the level in chess is not transitive. >>>>> >>>>>GM can be better than an IM >>>>>IM can be better than a computer >>>>>and the computer can be better than the first GM. >>>>> >>>>>The first GM knows that Rebel is better than him(her) so (s)he is not going to >>>>>play against Rebel in this situation. >>>>> >>>>>(s)he may play in a tournament when rebel is only one of 10 players (s)he is >>>>>going to play. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>I think this is way over-rated here. Because "rebel" after the first GM game >>>>is not the same as "rebel" before the second GM game. Rebel is a moving >>>>target since it is being changed every week, just like crafty. They can't >>>>really prepare a lot based on prior games. IE I would be perfectly happy >>>>playing the _same_ GM one game per week for a year. And would expect to do >>>>just as well as if I played 52 games in one tournament vs 52 different GM >>>>players. It isn't easy to prepare vs a 'development' program. If he was >>>>playing a released version of rebel that couldn't be changed, that would be >>>>a _big_ advantage. But that isn't happening here... >>> >>>I do not agree. >>> >>>I think that playing the same player again and again is a disadvantage because >>>the opponent may learn about the weaknesses of crafty by playing at home against >>>it(you can change the opening but I do not think that you can fix most of the >>>positional weaknesses). >>> >>>If you play in one tournament then the opponents will have less time to learn >>>about it because they have to prepare also against other GM's >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>This is simple to test... just drop in on ICC and ask "udav" or "vic11" or >>"cptnbluebear" or "dlugy" or you pick one... Ask (say) cptnbluebear "you >>often play crafty 40 games in one day, for days on end. Is it any easier to >>beat the last day than it was the first day, since you have seen it play so >>many games?" I'll bet the answer is "no" based on actual game results I see. >>Because I change the thing daily. plus the book learning avoids repeating >>bad lines. etc.. > >The difference is that in ICC the games are not tournament time control >and the opponents do not prepare seriously for these game like for tournament >time control. > >It is interesting to hear if they have the same opinion if the games were >tournament time control and one game for a week so they can play against crafty >at home(of course not with the same opening book) between the games and analyze >the games to learn more about crafty's positional mistakes. > >Uri Playing ICC is lots of fun. But consider this: playing chess behind a computer screen moving the pieces with a mouse is a whole different world than playing behind a wooden board feeling the chess pieces in your hands. Difference in ELO? 100? maybe 200? Ed
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.