Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:41:42 10/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 1999 at 06:48:50, Shaun Brewer 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... > >Bob, > >I have been reading these posts and want to throw in my thoughts. The extisting >Rebel10b seems to play most of the same moves that the new version plays. I >belive it would be possible to do a fair amount of preparation against Rebel as >the changes between versions is not dramatic, more than against a human >opponent. Opening book preparation is more difficult, as who can know what would >be in it? > >I love to see these computer v human games and wish to thank the Rebel company, >they are brave to make these challenges and should be supported. > >Shaun That is one reason (of many) why I believe 'preparation' is difficult. Humans don't vary their openings that much, as they 'get comfortable'. A computer is a 'loose cannon' in that regard. Sicilian today, KID or Caro tomorrow, etc. I think I have a much more difficult job of 'preparation' than Ed does. Because I have GM players that play my program 30+ games _every_ day. And they do ask "how come it doesn't do 'this' any more? I had just found a weakness, but it went away..." IE hardly anyone tries to do a wild attack any longer. Hardly anyone tries to trade into simple endgames where it has become very deadly, even against GM players... A commercial program would definitely have problems, since they are static after they are released. But Ed isn't using a static program. Neither am I (nor any of the other program developers on the servers). That is a very effective combat to preparation...
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.