Originally posted by toyger
But what I found funny was that:
"The computer-assisted PAL/CSS Freestyle Chess Tournament, staged on Playchess.com, ended with a shock win by two amateurs: Steven Cramton, 1685 USCF and Zackary Stephen, 1398 USCF, using three computers for analysis, defeated teams of strong grandmasters all the way to victory in the finals. We bring you a first flash rep ...[text shortened]... uch bad chess, why was tournament won by two amateurs with comps, rather than GM's and IM's?
yea, what an incredible achievement that one. 😀 my guess is that freestyle chess has some differences to other types of chess, such that specializing in it will yield some special advantages that neither an engine nor a unprepared GM can necessarily provide? what I read about the zacks team was that they had played countless freestyle games, and studied extensively on databases. making them essentially specialists in the variant (and remember, it was the first tournament, the GMs were probably not very well prepared for freestyle) and that along with 'perfect play' might have lead them to victory straight from an opening advantage. to me it seems plausible that a master would think in a position: "okay, that gives my opponent a slight advantage, but not enough to win" and be proved wrong with the more accurate centaur play than he would ever have been used to.
but it all still doesn't change the fact that every single engine without human assistance got beaten. even the strategical understanding of a 1300 & 1600 player was enough for that.
looking at the latest pal/css freestyle tournament, the best machine was 'mission control' with its 32 processors of brute force. it came in sixth with a -1 score. the winner was rybka + its IM author and his IM wife, ending up with +3. in 10 games, that's quite a lead.