Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:46:29 12/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 1999 at 17:06:31, John Warfield wrote: >On December 14, 1999 at 09:22:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 14, 1999 at 02:43:38, John Warfield wrote: >> >>>On December 13, 1999 at 16:59:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 13, 1999 at 16:23:43, John Warfield wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 13, 1999 at 15:09:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 13, 1999 at 14:58:30, walter irvin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 20:40:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On December 12, 1999 at 17:24:52, John Warfield wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Could you please tell me what your 2450 projection is for, on what machine? >>>>>>>>>Also I am curious what you would rate the best computer programs on these >>>>>>>>>platforms 1. Amd 600 2. Amd 300 3 MMX 200 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I think the best of today's programs, on the best of today's hardware, is >>>>>>>>playing at a 2450 (roughly) level (FIDE rating). I don't think cutting the >>>>>>>>hardware speed by a factor of 2, nor doubling the hardware speed, would make >>>>>>>>any significant change... The problem is that the programs are good tactically, >>>>>>>>but have significant positional holes that speed won't help. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I think programs will continue to improve, but only as those 'holes' are >>>>>>>>covered up solidly... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>do you believe that there are certain types of positions that computers play >>>>>>>better than humans and if so is it posible to gear the programs style and >>>>>>>opening book toward that goal .also what effect would haveing 4 or 5 different >>>>>>>engines with completely different styles available to the program have vs human >>>>>>>if the program randomly chose a different engine every 4 or 5 moves?????? that >>>>>>>asuming that all the engines were strong . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>1. "Do I believe that there are..." Yes. I remember playing a game using >>>>>>Cray Blitz at the 1984 US Open, against a 2400 (USCF) player. He finally >>>>>>resigned, saying "this was impossible for me... pieces pinned, pieces >>>>>>threatened, pieces on one side of the board attacking things on the other... >>>>>>It was just too much to keep up with..." >>>>>> >>>>>>2. "Is it possible to gear ..." Yes and No. A GM has a _lot_ to say about >>>>>>what happens in a game. If he plays for a draw, it is _very_ difficult to avoid >>>>>>drawing, without taking substantial risk. If he plays for a win, you have a >>>>>>good chance of leading the game into interesting positions. But forcing the >>>>>>game into wild tactics is simply not possible. The program has to be prepared >>>>>>to play tactical lines, and also to handle strategic lines, or it won't have a >>>>>>chance against a GM. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How has rebel managed to Draw atleast 5 times against grandmaster players if >>>>>it plays so stretigically bad?? >>>> >>>> >>>>Exactly _where_ did I say "Rebel has played strategically bad"??? >>>> >>>>Or did your imagination run away? >>> >>> >>> No you didn't actually say it in this thread, but based on reading some of >>>your other post, I get the impression that you think chess programs in general >>>(not just rebel) have very little strategic understanding, their only good >>>point being very strong tactics. Now it is possible that I am misuderstanding >>>you. >> >> >>That is an _entirely_ different statement. And yes, I think _all_ programs >>are weak strategically. > >Ok then this takes me back to my original question, How Can a program like rebel >draw a Grandmaster five times if it is strategically weak? Tactics alone cannot >do this? > > > Suppose the GM refuses to play to the program's weaknesses? Suppose he decides to 'duke it out' tactically? Of the GMs so far, Rhode played what I would call semi-decent anti-computer chess. But even he opened things up. Once GM players notice a weakness, it is _all over_ until the weakness is fixed... and there are _lots_ of weaknesses to notice... Once they get their ego under control and decide to play the opponent and not the board... > There are too many things they don't know. They are >>managing to get by on tactics, until the opponents start taking an active role >>in avoiding those kinds of positions. You only have to watch on ICC to see >>_every_ program have strategic problems... >> >>Rebel being not particularly worse (or better) than any other program. It is >>a serious problem.
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.