Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:20:59 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 11:35:40, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 25, 2002 at 23:30:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 25, 2002 at 13:06:00, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On May 24, 2002 at 11:42:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 24, 2002 at 08:31:59, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>Thanks. >>>>> >>>>>We have two open issues. >>>>> >>>>>1. My question about the first game in '97. Why Kasparov couldn't repeat his >>>>>dominating play against DB2? Was a general question about the apparent twist in >>>>>the match after the first game. BTW the mistakes of the machine were widely >>>>>analyzed and "accepted", as far as game 1 is concerned. Could you comment on the >>>>>mistakes, the twist and their reasons? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I still don't understand the question. Kasparov won game one, in what I >>>>consider to be a _very_ lucky manner. He lost an exchange. He just happened >>>>to end up with a couple of passed pawns that were not stoppable over time. I >>>>am not sure he planned on that happening, but it did. He didn't try to repeat >>>>game one again. In game two the colors were switched. In game 3 he tried a >>>>different opening. >>>> >>>>So I don't know what you mean by "why kasparov couldn't repeat his >>>>dominating play against DB2?" I don't see where he tried... >>> >>>I was just asking for your opinion about the world-wide accepted judgement that >>>DB2 played mistakes over and over in game one. Consequence the domination by >>>GKasparov. My question was not in regard to the opening but to the strategical >>>play of Kasparov. But if you see no rational in the question, we could let it >>>drop. I was just interested. >> >> >>I don't see much proof it played "mistakes" over and over in game 1. Moves >>criticized by others were labeled as "the only reasonable move" by Kasparov. > >So, nothing new. That was my question if something new had been found. Also from >the DB2 side. I have still other GM's opinion in mind. It's not just usenet >blabla. I still don't understand the principal change (if ever) between game 1 >and 2. But ok. According to the DB team members, no change was made between the first two games (something was changed later in the match, but I don't remember specifics). And since changing between round 1 and round 2 was perfectly acceptable practice, I don't see why they would say "no change" if they really did change something... > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>2. The Eduard Nemeth bet. Ok, fine. I talked to him via chat and he says he >>>>>wants 30 minutes games. But since he hasn't really understood yet our debate >>>>>here, he tought that it was a challenge from your side out of the blue, and his >>>>>first question was "how much money for each point". Well, I promissed him 200 ? >>>>>(euro) from _my_ side, but explained that 10 game only wouldn't be enough, it >>>>>should be about 20 or 30 games overall. Could you please comment a little bit >>>>>from your knowledge about similar "bets" on ICC and the probable outcome? I mean >>>>>would you say that GM Roman would win 1 pt. pro 10 games trivially or is that >>>>>already difficult for him in 30' games? >>>> >>>> >>>>Roman would _definitely_ win one of every 10 games. Against _any_ program. >>>>And that would be a lower bound. I would suspect he would win at least >>>>4 and perhaps do better depending on how well his opponent was able to avoid >>>>the kinds of positions Roman is good at setting up. >>> >>>Are you talking about 30' rapids? I didn't find too much other than Bullet and >>>Blitz in you very good database. >> >>I don't count blitz. It is not "solved" yet but computers are strong enough >>at blitz to make the contest not really interesting. I was thinking of 30 >>minute games with an increment to prevent sudden-death. > >Fine! That is what Eduard was saying too. He didn't mention increments but we >will see. Actually he's going underground from chess to lyrics... (cough) He can play 30 0 if he wants... > > > >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Another technical problem was for Eduard, who never played on ICC, that he >>>>>thinks he could only play on the new FRITZ server. Well, what is your opinion to >>>>>the technical problems. Could it be made possible to connect the two servers for >>>>>the little event? Or would you also say, what I have told Eduard, that the two >>>>>servers are probably similar for the players. Ahm, I remember, Fritz server has >>>>>a direct connection between the players, where you know exactly how long the >>>>>delay and stuff like this. Please give us your judgement, it could be >>>>>interesting for many potential players from Europe. >>>> >>>> >>>>He can easily download a windows version of winboard, install it, and >>>>connect to ICC instantly. It is very easy to set up and run. There are >>>>other ICC clients as well... zics, blitzen, you-name-it... >>>> >>>>He can log in as a guest to avoid joining, or he could do the free-week deal >>>>with no cost... >>> >>>Yes. Please give me another cople of weeks for Eduard, who is in a personal >>>vacation actually. It seems to be easier to intrumentalize GMRoman than our >>>Eduard. I did it for him besides my scientifical interest, but he is thinking >>>that you are the basic challenger for him. :) >> >>Remember that the "challenge" really wasn't my idea. But I am willing to >>try most anything for fun... > >Yes, I know, but not Eduard. It was _my_ dumb idea. But he isn't ready right >now. Pavarotti also has his problems at times. :) > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>And to the chess results, would you mind giving a border line, Eduard in your >>>>>opinion could not overstep, e.g. 2 pts. or something? Final question, and please >>>>>just for the German player who gives so much heart blood into computerchess, >>>>>what could be the prospects for someone like Eduard (understood that he might >>>>>even win 3 pts/10 games) in the world of CC? >>>>> >>>>>Thanks a lot for your answers >>>>> >>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>> >>>> >>>>What is Edward's FIDE (or equivalent) rating? If he is (say) 2150, then I >>>>would be surprised if he won two games, or if he drew four. Or any combination >>>>to produce 2 points in 10 games. >>> >>>Yes, he has about 2150 on a national level. Perhaps it's also interesting you >>>that Eduard did not present so many victories about Crafty than about Fritz. So >>>it might well be that certain things are not that easy against your prodigy. >>> >> >> >>I have beaten Crafty from time to time. If I published just those games, it >>would paint a picture that is _highly_ misleading. However, if I published >>those games just to show where it had a miserable understanding, it would be >>possible that someone would conclude that I won nearly every game by only look- >>ing at the result of each game I posted. I suspect that Nemeth was posting >>games to show program problems, rather than to say "I win every game." We will >>see... > >This is again about my interest in the title above. BTW Eduard is not a con man. >But IMO his discoveries reveiled many structural weaknesses of the computers. >But I know that you are the first to agree here. But I don't know if you know >how widely accepted the opinion is of the "2700" programs. Here you are almost >an alien with your opinion of the only 2500. And for me >Eduard is a symbol for >even deeper "strength", because traditionally we say that the strength is >depending on the weakest member. There are still too many weaknesses. The ones claiming 2700+ simply don't understand 2700+ chess, so those are just "numbers". 2500 is far closer to reality than 2700. If 2500 is a bit low, 2700 is _way_ high. So long as we talk about traditional chess and not 30 minute games. > >> >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>I don't think computers are "magic" in any way. But a 2100-level player, while >>>>able to win a game here and there, is going to be hard-pressed to win a single >>>>game against a reasonable computer opponent. I am, of course, curious whether >>>>he can actually do so or not, from an academic point of view... >>> >>>For Eduard it's more a question of honour right now against your challenge. >> >> >>Please explain this challenge to him. I don't doubt he can give computers >>great problems. Perhaps greater than his 2150 rating would suggest. But I >>think he will have his hands full playing a series of games where every game >>counts.. > >More than this. His problem is the time of the training. But this is nothing for >joking. This is what we said. With the necessary training things look different >against computers. You never said different. > > >> >> >> >> >>>Well, I'll keep you informed if I hear something new after the delay. Could you >>>in return inform me about a special historical event at ICC, where some >>>anononymous player "mercilious" did win some games in a row with a special trick >>>and who was banned for that (?) reason by ICC? So, basically it's not supported >>>if human players try such gambling? I have thus far read the news in Tim Krabbé. >> >> >>This was the "trojan horse attack." He got into trouble because he used it >>against all the comps on ICC, beating them over and over in the same game, >>simply to inflate his personal rating there. He would play the same game >>10 times if the computer would allow it. > >Was this the rule, was it forbidden to do? That was my astonishment.Was it >really a problem for you after the learning files (Uri made the point already)? > >Rolf Tueschen It is called "rating abuse" and takes many forms. One player intentionally losing to another to raise his rating. Doing the opposite against computers was another specific no-no covered in "rating abuse" on the chess servers. > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen
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.