Author: odell hall
Date: 22:13:14 10/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 1999 at 23:01:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? My point is that any average program can beat a grandmaster at blitz. I saw this is the same sense that you said a few months ago, that Fritz5.32 result against judith polgar was "no big deal" because any program could do the same at that particular time control. I am speaking relativly, and chessmaster is just average, or alittle less than average compared to the top programs. Probally alittle stronger than crafty on equal hardware.
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.