Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:01:03 10/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 1999 at 19:07:01, odell hall wrote: >On October 16, 1999 at 17:24:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 16, 1999 at 15:08:06, odell hall wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 1999 at 10:44:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 1999 at 05:21:09, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>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 >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't think so any longer. Early on, fritz challenged a few gm players >>>>to blitz games, played right on the fritz gui. It blew them out. Now GM >>>>players are quite at home with a 2-d board and a mouse. Some even say they >>>>prefer this over a real board. I doubt any would consider using a computer >>>>display/mouse as any sort of disadvantage at all, and at blitz they would >>>>likely say they far prefer the computer. much faster to move, no clock to >>>>hit, no pieces getting knocked over, etc.. >>> >>> >>> >>> If the time control was the same as what Ed is playing, crafty would get >>>murdered! I don't care how much you adjusted the evaluation. At blitz times >>>control grandmasters don't have the time to really evaluate the moves, or to >>>prove on the board that the changes you made were incorrect. Any rinkydink >>>program can beat a grandmaster at blitz. >> >> >>Thus speaks the voice of ignorance? First, you don't have a clue what a GM >>player is all about. > >And you do? Aren't you a 1900 player or was it 1700? Yet you know what a >grandmaster is? Don't make me laugh. > That's the difference between us. I _talk_ to them. On the phone. More than one. _regularly_. And no I don't have the understanding they do. But I do have a _good_ understanding of the game, and they are pretty good at filling in the gaps where I ask. And I know what _they_ think about computers... > > > >This evidenced by your continual statements about >>computers and GM players. And now you know exactly how crafty would do? It >>would do better than you suspect, because it has played a couple of GM players >>40/2 games, several games in fact.. > > >I guess larry kaufman and several others including Garry kasparov is ignorant >and do know what a grandmaster is?? Even though they are or Grandmasters? >Many have been saying the same thing, I guess more than half this newgroup is >ignorant?? You insult alot of people pal. Your arrogance does not allow you to >respect others opinions, which they have a right have. You act as if your word >is law and you have some kind of omnipotent knowledge that no one can question. >You got me on the technical aspects of programming but that is all, My guess is >about as good as yours, in the area of playing strength. > > And I guess that players like Kamsky, Lombardy, Dlugy, Shirov, Karpov, etc also don't know what is going on. Larry was 'seling'. Kasparov is 'selling'. So 'caveat emptor' applies when someone doing a critique has a vested interest. >>And your last statement is completely wrong. Just try it. We have lots >>of 'new programs' here. Ask how they do against GM players. These guys are >>murder. If only you knew... > > > Sorry but I have tried it, atleast against international Masters using Cm4000! >And it mopped the floor with the humans. \ CM4000 isn't a "raggedy program". So your point would be?
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.