Author: Shaun Graham
Date: 21:06:35 07/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
> >I think it is in part an issue of when to award a human title to a machine, and >in part an issue of whethere there is enough data to make a particular >conclusion. For me it's not an issue, a computer needs no actual title bestowed upon it. The question being debated as i understand it, is "fritz of grandmaster strength". > >Humans do some things very well, and computers do some things very well, but >they aren't the same things. Indeed you are correct. I would make the point however, that not only do computers do things well, but human individuals and programs vary from each other in the degree that they do things well. The question, is would the sum total of what they do result in a performance where three GM norms would be acquired if it were human(in other words eligible for the GM title). The notion of a human grandmaster is that of >someone who does a certain set of things very well, and there is no computer >that can do all of these things as well as a grandmaster. Regardless of this statement, there is compensation in the computers benefit, such as the tactical arena, it's lack of being intimidated or rattled, it doesn't get tired. The perforrmance is what makes a grandmaster, his ability to score a certain amount of points against a certain level of opposition in a certain category tournament. If a computer can score the necessary requirements(3 gm norms, it doesn't matter how, then it can be said that the computer performs at the level of a GM. Set up and endgame >fortress position and a computer won't evaluate it properly, they may not >conduct attacks well, they may not evaluate positional nuances well, and the >mistakes they make on individual moves are often referred to as beginner >mistakes. > >It may sound like I'm trying to set up a permanent semantic wall, but I am not. >There is a mechanism we can use to assess both computers and grandmasters, and >that method is Elo rating. Precise and exactly correct. > >The problem is that this isn't being used. If we really did want to assign >these machines the title of grandmaster, it would be a simple matter to make >them all memebers of FIDE, and get them playing in rated events, along side of >grandmasters and other players that grandmasters play against. I agree with this for the most part, except as i said human bias. I believe that when confronted with typical chess play indeed Computers will perform like GMs. However when it comes to punishing the style most commonly refferred to as "anti-computer chess" computers will not perform like grandmasters. So if a person uses a computer to train, and they play normal chess, then they will most likely have the effect of playing a grandmaster. However if they are playing a computer competitively with the aim of defeating the program, and use "anti-computer chess" the computer will not perform like a grandmaster, because it can't adapt to the situation. > >This hasn't been done, in large part because the humans don't want to do it, so >we are left with guessing about the machines' strength, unless we want to apply >some unreachable human standards against the machines, and declare that since >they can't reach this standard they aren't grandmasters, as I expressed in my >second paragraph. > >I think that I can easily claim that the stronger micro programs are all of >grandmaster strength when they play traditional (fast) blitz chess on the >servers. You can find many games where the humans play their strengths against >the weakness of the computers, resulting in games that are embarassing for the >computers, but the simple fact is that in the vast majority of cases it is the >grandmaster who ends up resigning. Everyone who runs a computer that the >grandmasters play against will be able to point to many little matches in excess >of four games where the program scored between 75 and 100 percent, and will be >able to point to very few cases where the reverse is true. Likewise, if you >look at lifetime totals between any of the computers and any of the GM's, it >will be very rare to see a case where the grandmaster has scored more than 50%. >I would expect that at least 75% by the computer would be the most likely case. > >I think there is way more than enough data to conclude that they are of >grandmaster strength at blitz, and in fact there is almost no contradictory >data. > >So in my opinion, the question in blitz chess as manifested on the servers, the >question is not whether the computers are GM strength, the question is whether >they would be in the top ten. I agree GM strength, if top ten i have no data available to me. >And I personally expect that the answer is yes. > >I there there is a time control beyond which grandmasters must be stronger than >computers. Must is a very strong term. I don't know what it is, but it makes sense to expect that it is >somewhere in between blitz and a tournament game. It only makes sense that the >crossover point will continue to move closer to tournament time control as we go >along. > >Personally I don't think we are there yet. I can accept that oppinion Shaun
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.