Author: walter irvin
Date: 11:54:22 11/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 1999 at 11:28:04, blass uri wrote: >On November 21, 1999 at 04:56:00, Anatoli wrote: ><snipped> >>I can't understand all that >>mess around Hiarcs 7.32 when it was release 6 months ago. You can only enjoy it >>when you organise an engine tournament and you would find Hiarcs on the top of >>the table. But it's "understanding" of positions is very low. > >I agree about it. >The "understanding" of all programs is low. > > Sorry, But Nimzo >>and Junior are absolutely unsuitable for deep analises. I hope that the nest >>versions would be better. >>There were many conversations here if the top engines play at the grandmaster >>level. My answer is NOT. They can beat 2600+ IG in a game with 1 or 2 hour time >>control. But if a IG has much more time on thinking, any engine doesn't have any >>chances. I will give you my own example. Now I play in e-mail tournaments and >>have 2515 rating. ALL MY PARTNERS use top engines without any understanding >>what's going on the board. They simply receive my moves, then give it to Fritz >>or Hiarcs and then sent me the answer in no time. I can immedeatelly find out >>what sort of engine they use.I call such sort of players as postmen. > > >How much time do they give the programs for a move? > >I know noone who think that top programs are better than IM's if you give both >sides 1 hour per move. > >>Unfortunately I play against 99% postmen. Till now I finished 20 games and I won >>14 and 6 draws. Not too bad result against Fritz and Hiarcs, what do you think ? > >1)This result give fritz,Hiarcs performance of 2515-280=2245 and this is a more >realistic rating for computers in correspondence chess. > >2)Do you use computer to help you to avoid tactical mistakes? >I think that the fair test is to play with no help against a computer. >I believe that you can win most of the games(I believe that every 2400 player >who use 1 hour per move can do it) > >3)I am surprised by the fact that your opponents use top engines without any >understanding what's going on the board. >I have a friend with 1600 elo rating who use programs in a more intelligent way >and do not trust top programs everywhere. > >4)I play in the 3/4 final of the correspondence of Israel. >I thought to choose my moves only by a computer program to prove my theory that >a computer can go to the final but I also want to be in the final so I changed >my mind and I am not going to do this experiment because I do not want to take >risks. >I think that I am going to choose in more than 80% of the cases the move of the >computer but I do not use always the same program > >I have a game when I decided not to trust my Junior5.9(it suggested a move that >I did not like after many hours and I gave it to play a game against hiarcs and >hiarcs got a better position so I decided to trust hiarcs in this game(I may >change my mind if hiarcs will suggest a bad move). > >5)I also did not like Junior5.9's move in another position: > >r1b2rk1/1pq1bppp/p1nppn2/8/P1BNP3/2N1B3/1PP1QPPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1 > >Junior5.9 suggested to play 11.Nxc6 after some hours. >I did not like this move and played 11.f4 >I do not have a clear plan what to do now but I read in a book that Nxc6 is a >typical computer mistake in similar positions. >Hiarcs7.32 also likes Nxc6(at least at fast time control because I did not give >it many hours). > >6)I got the position after >1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 a6 8.Qe2 Qc7 >9.a4 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 >The first 8 moves was from Junior's original book and I never play this opening >so I have no idea how to play it. > >I decided to ask amir ban for boris alterman's book because I believed it is a >better book and he told me that one of the moves was 9.a4 so I decided to play >this move. > >I do not know what comes after 9.a4 because I did not ask Amir about it after I >decided to stop help him by telling him about bugs of Junior or giving him games >or telling him my ideas to improve Junior(Junior does not use most of my ideas >and it is clear that at least most of the changes are not because of me). > >Do not get the impression that I hate Junior or Amir. >The fact that I stop helping Junior does not say it(I do not tell my ideas to >many programmers). > >>17 out of 20. If you play by e-mail, don't trust to your engines. I have MANY >>examples when my partners sent me computor's moves and I sent them back my >>answers which Fritz or Junior didn't see at all.Use your Fritz or Rebel just to >>check your blunders but NEVER trust them. > >You cannot trust them also about tactics. >They cannot see the draw in the position that kasparov resigned but >every correspondence player who use programs can see the draw and avoid the >mistake of deeper blue to let kasparov to draw from an inferior position. > >>So, please be realistic. The level of all top engines in correspondence games is >>around 2400. >>Do you believe me ?! >>My best wishes >>Anatoli > >No >I think that the level of computers in correspondence chess is between 2200 and >2300 >when people say that computers are grandmasters they mean to tournament time >control and not to slower games. > >Uri i wonder if a computer such as deep blue searching 200,000,000 nps would do alright in a correspondence tourn ????? maybe deep blue would get bulged down and not actually play much better than it does at reg tourn ????
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.