Author: Albert Silver
Date: 11:44:27 12/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 1999 at 13:26:05, Ed Schröder wrote:
>On December 13, 1999 at 10:12:21, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On December 13, 1999 at 05:44:37, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>
>>>>Posted by Robert Hyatt on December 12, 1999 at 10:19:26:
>>>
>>>>>>But it clearly isn't doing _nearly_ as well vs humans (even with anti-human on)
>>>>>>as it is doing against other programs...
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you have some game examples that supports your strong judgement?
>>>>>
>>>>>Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>>Somebody else already posted a really bad result vs a humaon on FICS (winning
>>>>1/3, losing 2/3, against a player that isn't a "master" of anything but anti-
>>>>computer chess. I have watched "other" players (not often as I don't watch
>>>>very often, except when crafty/scrappy is idle) also cause problems... This
>>>>is the most striking example of comp-vs-comp strength being _far_ different
>>>>than comp-vs-human strength that I recall in recent years...
>>>
>>>This specific case wasn't an issue of playing strength but time-control which
>>>in the meantime is corrected.
>>>
>>>I am still waiting for the game examples that supports your judgement.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Keep waiting. I looked thru several 'shutka' games. In a couple time was the
>>problem, but if you look carefully, _many_ games were _not_ lost on time. They
>>were lost OTB. However, I hardly consider it my job to point out where it is
>>playing poorly in the endgame or whatever (oops, almost said too much already).
>>Just don't make the mistake of thinking that this was 60 losses on time, 30
>>wins OTB. That wasn't the case _at all_.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>But as I mentioned before, remember that "I am 10 years behind the commercial
>>>>programs". I don't see any reason to point out the weaknesses of someone that
>>>>is 10 years ahead of me, wouldn't you agree? But, in fact, the problems are
>>>>very obvious, so my analysis isn't needed anyway...
>>>
>>>It took me some time to figure what you are talking about. A few short remarks:
>>>a) it wasn't said that way, b) action forces reaction, c) let's live in peace.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fixing the problems is going to adversely affect its currently great
>>>>anti-computer style of play, however...
>>>
>>>Oh come on.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>
>>No "oh come on" here. It needs knowledge in a few significant places. I know
>>of no way to implement this kind of knowledge without losing significant speed.
>>And that is going to make a difference in how it plays against computers. The
>>"holes" will become apparent after playing a few IM/GM players... Right now I
>>have not seen it ever refuse to win a pawn, given the chance. Which might be
>>the perfect strategy against computers. But against some GM/IM players I know,
>>it is asking for trouble. _particularly_ at fast time controls, which is how
>>most programs get used...
>
>We will see. The very first game Tiger played against a GM it won. I would
>certainly call that a good start.
>
>I am working on a decisive match against Lithunia. 6 boards. 2xGM and 4xIM
>hopefully. Tiger will play on 2 boards.
>
>Ed
I cannot begin to tell you how interesting these GM challenges are. I tip my hat
for these initiatives. :-)
Albert Silver
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.