Author: Howard Exner
Date: 00:54:19 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1998 at 05:28:26, Shaun Graham wrote: >Concerning the Kotronias Fritz match: Do you or anyone have more info on this match? Time controls,computer speed? Also does someone have these games converted to PGN. I was not able to play over the games as posted on the FIDE site (I'm way too lazy to punch in the moves manually). > > Well a single match doesn't prove or support anything. If kasparov or Anand >played most any GM alive, a 3 game match the score would be 3-1 or even 3 0!! >Fischer beat larsen 6 0 does that mean Larsen is not grandmaster strength? Yes, the sample size indeed matters as you have pointed out. Otherwise we would always question the last place finisher of GM tournaments. Didn't Shirov play about 300 ELO points below his rating in a recent tournament? >Further Grandmasters have an unfair advantage against computers in that in >professional chess, GMs prepare for each other. Kotronias can prepare for >fritz, but Fritz can't prepare for kotronias(except IF a special opening book >has been prepared but still not the same) That computers have of no knowledge of who they are playing and therefore cannot prepare for an opponent is not so much unfair as it is a weakness of the computer program. But this same weakness can be a strength in that it allows the machine to "play the board". >Further Kotronias WOULD BE EXPECTED >TO BEAT some people with the GM title 3 0! At least Fritz had a point. Seeing >that he had a point, and you attempt tosuggest that a 3 game match is >evidence,would you claim that Fritz is I.M strength since it BEAT a grandmaster >after all. If you accept that Fritz is I.M strength, then you should know that >there are I.M.'s that are stronger than many grandmasters case in point "Igor >Ivanov, Sokolin, Michael Brooks". Many I.M.s get the grandmaster title simply >by playing in lots of tournaments in europe, if you are an I.M, and you play >enough especially in lower category tourneys you will get the 3 GM norms. In >the New york open there were several GMs in the under 2400 section, and even a >couple rated under 2300!! So is Fritz a GM? The average GM ELO is around 2540 (Kotronias is 2555). I believe the top commercials are around 2500 ELO. I base this on the quality of the games I observe them play. In playing over the games from CCL it is becoming harder to distingush from playing over tournament games of players rated in the 2450-2550 range. Of course computers still make blunders but these are frequently found in the low to mid GM's also.(Super GM's too for that matter). I also base this assessment of 2500 computer play on testimony of strong players. Lev Alburt and Larry Kaufman both say around 2500. Most recently the interview of Anand was revealing. Here is part of that interview taken from the FIDE homepage: Q: You had an easy time against Fritz. Does the play of Fritz fall into a predictable pattern for you? A: It is very tricky. I mean, when I play it on my machine here, it sounds like a see-saw. When I am concentrating I usually do very well. Sometimes you usually feel you crush the machine. You think around and the next thing you are not going to win. If you play a 100 games I tell you you go through a whole gamut of chess emotions. I will be piece up. I will be simplifying into a won ending. I finally find myself that I have missed something silly. There are certain things you can stop doing. When you play the queen's gambit declined you wait for something to happen on the king side. You don't have to worry about the moves which say Vladi (Kramnik) found in the first tie-break game. It may or may not find these things. You can stop running out of a problem but suddenly other problems start running larger. Specifically it is tactics. Against humans you often forget about a pawn. It doesn't matter. You think top players punish every inaccuracy. It is not so. Certainly some inaccuracies are punished ruthlessly, others are not. Especially if the refutation is not so easy to see. Against the machine it is totally different. Of course what I did against the machine was perfect. If I am able to come up with a long term plan and get these positions it is very smooth. I find it quite a challenge playing it. I enjoy it. I get a lot of satisfaction. I was very very pleased. If you have managed to outplay the computer, you get pleasure. It is like tricking somebody. In the same way I will be very proud if my opponent had prepared a certain line and I use a transposition to trick him out of it. I get the satisfaction if I get the position I want to play against the computer. Q: You were worried about one plan of the computer? A: At a certain point I was debating whether I should play this move g5 or not. Normally it was better to play h5 and fight for the light squares very vigorously. Here, I felt if Fritz got f4 and g4 at a certain point my concentration would wane. I had to watch for this f5 trick and tactics every move. To cut a long story short I wasn't worried Fritzy will find the whole plan. Only if it stumbles on Nd3 and then the only obvious square to go is f2 and then go to either e4 or g4 and land on f6. To play Nd3 it has to see the whole plan otherwise it wouldn't do it in the first place. Well, during a game you have all sorts of fears and some of them are revealed and also threatening. Q: You made it look easy. What will be the result if Fritz played using a mainframe? A: After beating it it is easy to say. Okay, everyone saw the press conference before the match and I was tense about it. The computers are getting to a point where you have to be very careful. Fully concentrated. And then go from there. When I play Vladimir also I am concentrating well and so on. But when I play against the computer I don't have this tension. I know if I get the right kind of position I win. If you get a tactical position, you have to concentrate fully. It is anyway superior to you in tactics. It is not if you concentrate you are equal. You are not. So it is weird. Also, somebody tells me it is six 333 MHz processors all running in parallel. I have no way to translate that into chess moves. All I know is it sounds frightening. So far I feel I am quite confident when I am playing computers. The danger is always there. I think if I play twenty games I might not do that well. If I do play that many I am not going to be that concentrated. Days are long long gone that you can laugh at this machine.They are capable of beating anyone because of a) they don't know who you are and b) they are overwhelmingly superior to all humans in certain categories and c) inferior in minor categories. Anand does not say directly what Fritz is rated but his words are very interesting. Note the comments.. It is very tricky. I mean, when I play it on my machine here, it sounds like a see-saw The computers are getting to a point where you have to be very careful I find it quite a challenge playing it. They are capable of beating anyone because of a) they don't know who you are and b) they are overwhelmingly superior to all humans in certain categories and c) inferior in minor categories Does Anand talk this way about IM's too? Sounds to me as if he thinks computers are pretty strong. If you have managed to outplay the computer, you get pleasure > Also GM's often beat computers by playing anti computer chess instead of >regular >chess, so if i showed up and was bieng secretly told moves by fritz, and no one >knew to play ANTI COMPUTER chess against me i'd kill and have my norm! So yes >Fritz is a grandmaster at regular chess(at least on a P400)but because it has >weaknesses that it's opponent can know and play against, and fritz can not alter >itself that results in losses. Fritz is a GM if it were in a human body!
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.