Nimzovik wrote:Ah yes...... the ches tiger stuff. Note that this isuue does not solve the Pablo problem. If one were a Gm and played Pablo tactics the said Gm wins ..... If the program is then 'tweaked' the Gm perhaps wins again because said tweaks then creates another exploitable weakness of the program by the Gm. The fact that Pablo does what he does against such a vast rating difference simply can not be ignored or repressed. As Pablo indicates there is a paradigm that chess machines do not comprehend.
chess tiger proofs that there is no paradigm
antichess only seems to works because pablo only publishes his wins against some topengines.
ovidio123 wrote:Why are you attacking Pablo's language and personality? What does that have to do with chess and his win against Rybka?
Ovidio
PS BTW, your typing also has some errors....
Thank you, can you point me out the corrections?
It has to do with a personality who claims a perfect method to bust the engines, but I have not seen the first convincing win. You go through his posts, which I often try to ignore, and you get a sensation of reading a fake advertising, selling a miracle formula to combat the engines.
What I only see is a good Blitzer from time to time when it has the chance to draw against any engine.
At least, the advertising should be more convincing. That is why he should take care of his postings…
I am thinking chess is in a coin.Human beings for ever playing in one face.Now I am playing in the other face:"Antichess". Computers are as a fortres where owner forgot to close a little door behind. You must enter across this door.Forget the front.
Arturo Ochoa wrote:Maybe, I will be here very incisive.
According to your profile, you are Lawyer. I tried to find you in Linkedin or other social networks for work but I did not succeed. In general, a lawyer always takes care of details, simple details. I find you make a lot of errors when typing your English no caring the most simple correction.
If I have understood all this stuff, the engine looses because of certain bug in the chess client GUI connected to the playchess server. Continuing in this semantic of details, have you ever tried these engines in different GUIs such as Winboard, Shredder, ChessPartner, applying your concepts of Antichess? What is more, have you tried longer time controls without applying the same tricks of premoving?!
I find really weird that you only post the wins and not the looses that you face. What is the proportion of looses vs. wins?!
Could you please post some games that human players won against Rybka, Hiarcs, Stockfish or other engines of similar strength?
Pablo can.
Rybka + Playchess server + GUI + bug = MACHINE
Pablo = HUMAN
Period.
Could you please post some games where he has won, using a GUI without the bugs? A convincing win in standard time controls?
Sorry, the machine is the engine...
Try to bust Shredder or Rybka or a 2400 engine in other Gui....
#.. many times if you are playing against a Top Chess Computer dont move your elements; the best funtion of them could be to be quiet and in absolute silence.
#.. many times if you are playing against a Top Chess Computer dont move your elements; the best funtion of them could be to be quiet and in absolute silence.
Regards,
Pablo
Funny Pablo
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Novelty in moves 7,8,9,10,11 and 136 !!
Man versus machine
May 24,2010
If a person wants to beat a Top Chess computer, it is necesary to make the preparation at home ... A novelty in the opening could be enought to destroy all the super chess computers skills.
This game was an example of novelty in moves, 7, 8, 9, 10 an 11, from the human being inside, an finally a human being novelty in the move 136 opening the game following an easy way for the human being victorie.
I am thinking chess is in a coin.Human beings for ever playing in one face.Now I am playing in the other face:"Antichess". Computers are as a fortres where owner forgot to close a little door behind. You must enter across this door.Forget the front.
the point is that there is no point.
this flaw in programs has been known and deminstrated
for a long,long time.
evidently the programmers dont care enough to alter
there programs to prevent it.
at normal controls it should'nt be an issue.
at bullit chess a human would claim the draw in a locked position.
the opponent would have to show the arbitraiter that there was still play.
allso without pre-move and glitchy gui's it would be fun to see a human try to keep up with a comp.
and yes anyone who would want to spend the time can(i said can)
learn to do this too.
skoony wrote:the point is that there is no point.
this flaw in programs has been known and deminstrated
for a long,long time.
evidently the programmers dont care enough to alter
there programs to prevent it.
That's just wrong. The situation has improved. A couple of years back when I tried this Nonsense out of curiosity against then leading programs Shredder and Hiarcs, they would lock up the position completely almost all the time.
Now this doesn't seem to work often anymore. Last time I looked father had 6% at playchess and lost several times 20 games in a row before he was lucky to get a completely locked up position.
2) What I do not understand from your initial posting is why, even if you disagreed with his chess claims, you decided to attack a) his language skills and b) his professional qualifications. You and I, as well as Pablo, speak English as a foreign language, so errors and mistakes are expected to be made. I believe it is extremely rude to make fun of them.
Thank you,
Si no fuese mucha molestia, te rogaria que no continuemos discutiendo sobre este tema: no es ni importante. ni productiva. Tampoco quisiera dar motivos para que otras personas se inmiscuyan en este asunto y creen una controversia mayor. He leido algunos posteos tuyos y, de ellos, he extraido una opinion sobre vos que creo que es correcta: que sos bien educado e instruido. Desearia mantener mi opinion intacta. Si en algun momento te ofendi, quiero que sepas que no lo hice a proposito.
