[PhilG007]

[quote name='Zelandakh' timestamp='1463038311' post='884983']
I am sure Justin will pass your advise on to Meckwell. They might become a half-decent pair if they were just willing to take those crutches off.
[/quote
I would dearly love to see "Meckwell" take on our BBO GIBS in a head to head. But I doubt they would be willing
to risk their prestige against the chance they would suffer the same fate as Garry Kasparov did against super computer "Deep Blue"
in 2008 (!) In his excellent book,"Right Through The Pack Again"(2008) a sequel to the classic work, Ron Klinger has his heroic
human champion player 'The Old Master' going head to head in a Bermuda Bowl Final against 5 times World Bridge Computer Champion
Highest Expert Level Player (H.E.L.P.) I found the deals and the text fascinating to read.

[Zelandakh]

Gary Kasparov was also unwilling to "risk his prestige" against the original Chessmaster. The comparative level of GIB is arguably lower than CM1 at the current time. The result of such a challenge would probably not be much closer than if you were to take on Meckwell. Have GIBs beating the advanced players before moving on to world champions.

[gwnn]

I agree with the general feeling, 4xGIB would lose badly against any decent opposition, no need to hire Meckwell. I do wonder however how much GIB could be improved by just allotting more computer power. Of course its bidding and strict confidence in opposition bidding will not be solved and the match would still be very much one-sided. But would its cardplay significantly improve if we gave it (say) 32 dedicated cores and more time to think?

[sfi]

I'm surprised by the vote for Lebensohl over some sort of checkback. Without New Minor Forcing or similar, there are an entire group of hands you can't show over a 1NT rebid.

Which flavour of checkback is much less important than having one is much less important though.

[helene_t]

I don't think checkback should be such a high priority. Most hands can be dealt with using either a natural invite, a (fake) jump shift or a fake reverse, or they would have made a jump shift in the first place. Meanwhile, the loss of a natural nonforcing 2♣ bid is, while not a big deal, not dismissable either.

I wonder, since you don't currently play Drury, if you have a firm understanding of the forcing character of
pass-1M
2m

Some people assume Acol (whatever that means), other assume SAYC (whatever that means). If you do have a firm understanding of this then I will withdraw my vote for Drury, but otherwise you need to discuss it and then I think introducing Drury is just as simple while significantly better.

Something else: Maybe Landy should be on the list? If you play in a weak nt field you will face lots of enemy 1NT openings.

[nige1]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-12, 00:53, said:

Thank you for vindicating my previous posting It just serves to prove that it isonly a cripple that needs crutches(!)

Terence Reese derided 4SF as "that pitiful crutch" For a regular partnership, however, conventions can be effective and fun.

Excellent complete modern system-cards are easily available. Hence you don't need to re-invent the wheel. Although you might simplify some of them. Consistency reduces memory strain. e.g. "System-on" when no-trump is the 1st natural bid by the partnership. It's also easier to remember frequently used conventions e.g. Carding and competitive methods. Some constructive conventions also qualify e.g Gazzilli and XYZ.

You can practice your bidding conventions at a BBO bidding-table, using appropriate dealer-scripts.

[PhilG007]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-13, 02:26, said:

Gary Kasparov was also unwilling to "risk his prestige" against the original Chessmaster. The comparative level of GIB is arguably lower than CM1 at the current time. The result of such a challenge would probably not be much closer than if you were to take on Meckwell. Have GIBs beating the advanced players before moving on to world champions.

I find that surprising. "Deep Blue" was a far stronger computer than Chessmaster yet Kasparov accepted the
challenge to play a match against it.The makers of"Deep Blue" were also very confident as they put a big wager on the outcome of the match. They must have been cock a hoop at the final result. I think that Kasparov seriously underestimated his cybernetic opponent
and got punished for it.

[PhilG007]

nige1, on 2016-May-13, 04:49, said:

Terence Reese derided 4SF as "that pitiful crutch" For a regular partnership, however, conventions can be effective and fun.

Excellent complete modern system-cards are easily available. Hence you don't need to re-invent the wheel. Although you might simplify some of them. Consistency reduces memory strain. e.g. "System-on" when no-trump is the 1st natural bid by the partnership. It's also easier to remember frequently used conventions e.g. Carding and competitive methods. Some constructive conventions also qualify e.g Gazzilli and XYZ.

You can practice your bidding conventions at a BBO bidding-table, using appropriate dealer-scripts.

Reese also derided the weak 2 but as he was an Acolite that was no surprise. Yet the weak two has proven to be
an effective weapon.

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 07:21, said:

I find that surprising. "Deep Blue" was a far stronger computer than Chessmaster yet Kasparov accepted the
challenge to play a match against it. I think that Kasparov seriously underestimated his cybernetic opponent
and got punished for it.

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.

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-13, 07:24, said:

Reese also derided the weak 2 but as he was an Acolite that was no surprise. Yet the weak two has proven to be
an effective weapon.

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).

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-13, 07:40, said:

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.

[nige1]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-13, 07:40, said:

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.

[manudude03]

It's funny that Reese would object to weak twos when he was the main person responsible for popularizing the multi.

[PhilG007]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-13, 07:35, said:

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 it
as 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.

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-14, 08:44, said:

"Jack 0.6" took its 10th World Computer Bridge Title in August last year in Chicago. Would you not fitly regard it
as 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?

[Vampyr]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-14, 08:44, said:

"Jack 0.6" took its 10th World Computer Bridge Title in August last year in Chicago. Would you not fitly regard it
as 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...

[PhilG007]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-14, 10:08, said:

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 against
a top human pair. I'm just curious as to what the outcome of such an encounter would be.

[PhilG007]

Vampyr, on 2016-May-14, 10:09, said:

In the land of the blind...

In the land of the Dumb

[FrancesHinden]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-14, 08:44, said:

"Jack 0.6" took its 10th World Computer Bridge Title in August last year in Chicago. Would you not fitly regard it
as 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.

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-14, 23:28, said:

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 against
a 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.