aguahombre Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Do you have a reference for that? I know Reese would deride weaker players misusing weak two openings but as far as I know he had nothing against them when used correctly (we can argue about what "correctly" ought to mean).IOW, he objected to a weak two using wk-2's. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 Do you have a reference for that? I know Reese would deride weaker players misusing weak two openings but as far as I know he had nothing against them when used correctly (we can argue about what "correctly" ought to mean). My (flaky) recollection is that weak twos were once banned in England because of objections from Reese and others. David Stevenson (a more reliable authority on the laws) thinks I'm mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manudude03 Posted May 13, 2016 Report Share Posted May 13, 2016 It's funny that Reese would object to weak twos when he was the main person responsible for popularizing the multi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilG007 Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 Then you should go back and look at the source material. Kasparov was heavily involved in improving chess computers and instrumental in bringing about the advances that allowed them to compete successfully at GM level. He accepted the challenge against Deep Blue precisely because it was a worthy opponent. Yes, he probably did think he would still win the match but I am quite sure that he did not underestimate the scale of the challenge. CM1 would not have been a worthy opponent for him. It would have been a waste of time to play such a match. That is the case for Meckwell regarding GIB at the present time. It may well be that bridge computers advance in the coming years to the point where such a match would be useful and worthwhile. But if you put the lack of such a match down to fear then you are delusional sadly mistaken."Jack 0.6" took its 10th World Computer Bridge Title in August last year in Chicago. Would you not fitly regard itas a worthy opponent for "Meckwell"(?) It sure has some pretty impressive statistics (www.jackbridge.com) It would certainly be the bridge equivilant of the Kasparov match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 "Jack 0.6" took its 10th World Computer Bridge Title in August last year in Chicago. Would you not fitly regard itas a worthy opponent for "Meckwell"(?)No. Can you find a single expert player that seriously regards Jack as being at a similar level as the top players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted May 14, 2016 Report Share Posted May 14, 2016 "Jack 0.6" took its 10th World Computer Bridge Title in August last year in Chicago. Would you not fitly regard itas a worthy opponent for "Meckwell"(?) It sure has some pretty impressive statistics (www.jackbridge.com) It would certainly be the bridge equivilant of the Kasparov match. In the land of the blind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilG007 Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 No. Can you find a single expert player that seriously regards Jack as being at a similar level as the top players?I would put that down to human pride and vanity more than anything else. A stubborn faith in the human brain.A fear of the monster turning on its maker. To my knowledge,Jack hasn't been tested yet againsta top human pair. I'm just curious as to what the outcome of such an encounter would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilG007 Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 In the land of the blind...In the land of the Dumb :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 "Jack 0.6" took its 10th World Computer Bridge Title in August last year in Chicago. Would you not fitly regard itas a worthy opponent for "Meckwell"(?) It sure has some pretty impressive statistics (www.jackbridge.com) It would certainly be the bridge equivilant of the Kasparov match. No. It would be nowhere close. Computer bridge programs at the moment are trivially and easily exploitable during both the bidding and the play by anyone who can be bothered to understand how they work. The GIBs are laughably bad compared to a human expert. Jack may be better, but not that much so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 I would put that down to human pride and vanity more than anything else. A stubborn faith in the human brain.A fear of the monster turning on its maker. To my knowledge,Jack hasn't been tested yet againsta top human pair. I'm just curious as to what the outcome of such an encounter would be.Sadly Phil, I think your viewpoint comes from an unrealistic evaluation of your own strengths. The truth is that truly advanced players beat GIB consistently every day even when playing the GIB system. When playing artificial methods such as Meckwell Precision (or my system for that matter) it is trivial to beat GIB. As Frances points out, the difference in level between GIB and Jack is not overwhelming. I daresay that you can run GIB close when playing against it. Perhaps you genuinely feel that that is a pointer to GIB being close to expert level. It isn't. Bridge computers are simply not far enough along in their development yet. I believe that at some point they will play at the level of top human players and quite possibly significantly higher. We are currently not close to that. Think back to chess computers in the early-mid 80s, that is where we are in bridge. The outcome of such a match at the present time is not in doubt; give it a decade or two and it might well be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfi Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 Bridge computers are simply not far enough along in their development yet. I believe that at some point they will play at the level of top human players and quite possibly significantly higher. We are currently not close to that. Think back to chess computers in the early-mid 80s, that is where we are in bridge. The outcome of such a match at the present time is not in doubt; give it a decade or two and it might well be. I actually don't think bridge computers will get to the level of good humans. It's not that they can't - we've seen too many advances in too many areas to believe that. I just don't believe anyone will have a good reason to spend the money required to make it happen. Deep Blue was a sizeable investment from IBM and there doesn't seem to be the visibility or incentives to do the same for bridge. One thing is certain - Jack isn't it. Even though I recommend it as a useful learning tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullve Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 Lebensohl may seem the obvious choice but imo drury is what you probably miss most frequently and it is simpler. Just don't forget to agree that it is off after interference and that it doesn't apply after 1d.But the following application is new to me:[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|jec,barmar,sillafu,jjones|st||md|3S8H5689DJAC236JQA%2CS3JKAH7TJD479TC48%2CS467TH2QKAD36QC59%2C|rh||ah|Board%205|sv|n|mb|p|mb|p|mb|1C|mb|p|mb|2C|an|druri|mb|p|mb|2H|mb|p|mb|4H|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|SA|pc|S4|pc|S2|pc|S8|pc|SK|pc|S6|pc|S5|pc|H5|pc|H6|pc|H7|pc|HQ|pc|H3|pc|C5|pc|C7|pc|CQ|pc|C4|pc|H8|pc|HT|pc|HK|pc|H4|pc|C9|pc|CT|pc|CJ|pc|C8|pc|CA|pc|HJ|pc|HA|pc|CK|pc|D3|pc|D2|pc|DJ|pc|D4|pc|DA|pc|D7|pc|D6|pc|D5|mc|12|]400|300[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 On Wikipedia there is a small paragraph on a match Helene previously mentioned: A series of articles published in 2005 and 2006 in the Dutch bridge magazine IMP describes matches between five-time computer bridge world champion Jack and seven top Dutch pairs including a Bermuda Bowl winner and two reigning European champions. A total of 196 boards were played. Jack defeated three out of the seven pairs (including the European champions). Overall, the program lost by a small margin (359 versus 385 imps). Does anyone know more about this challenge? Were humans instructed not to excessively psyche/adopt anti-robot behaviour? Computers got a lot faster now, although I can imagine that making computers better at bridge is much less a question of processing power than making them good at chess (although there, too, I know that evaluation criteria got much better as well as hardware). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted May 15, 2016 Report Share Posted May 15, 2016 But the following application is new to me:It looks rather as if Papi misread the opening bid as 1♠. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.