Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:57:29 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 1998 at 00:28:52, Shaun Graham wrote: >On July 13, >> >> >>based on experience I don't think this is true. The best chance comes early, >>not later, because Fritz has serious holes in it, as does every program I can >>think of, and GM's are going to find 'em, and drive trucks through 'em. > >First of all human players have their own holes to deal with. I'm not going to >argue against that if GM's play anti-computer chess that they will win more >games against a computer of course they will. If you are playing a competitive >game against a computer program and use anti-computer techniques, the computer >WILL NOT perform like a GM, because they can't adapt and punish these methods as >a human GM would. However if you are training with a computer and play your >normal game(regular GM chess) against the computer just as if it were an unknown >grandmaster, then it will perform like a Grandmaster. So the question is, (1) >is Fritz a GM strength against typical non anti-computer chess? I would say >certainly. (2) Is it a GM against non typical (anti computer) chess? I would >say definitely not,for the reason that the programs are currently unable to >adapt to such situations. Please take a deep breath, and reflect on what you are saying for a minute, and you'll realize how flawed your logic is. You are saying that when a human plays "anti-computer" he can beat the computer but when he doesn't he won't. I fail to understand your "logic." Let's try a different activity entirely to see why it makes no sense to me. I used to compete actively in full-contact Karate, years ago. If you know anything about Karate, you know there are several "styles". Some depend solely on kicks, others depend more on hand blows or punches, others depend on a combination of blows and leverage (Judo-like stuff). If I *knew* my opponent wasn't a "kick-boxer" then do you think I chose to go head-to-head with him in *his* strong suit? Nope, he had to fight a kick-boxer. If I knew my opponent was a kick-boxer, then I went for leverage/close-in fighting to minimize his strong point. When playing humans in chess, in my first chess-club, I learned who liked to play wildly and was a good calculator, and who liked to play quietly and get into a complex endgame. And in each case, I did my very best to give my opponent exactly what he didn't want. In 1970 I had a USCF provisional rating of 2258/19. I was probably not that good. But We had two experts (>2000) players in our local club that considered themselves to be endgame specialists sort of in the Karpov mold. And I learned to tear their heads off in tactical games. Not every time, but in my first two rated tournaments, I beat both of them with surprise tactical openings that they hated. The point? If I have to play fritz, I'd probably get beat by it. But I wouldn't get beat in a wild tactical game, because I would at least exert enough control in the game to avoid such. A GM can do it easily. And if he thinks it is the right strategy to win, he will. I fail to see how you can consider a program a GM if it can be shredded over and over by a GM. It just doesn't wash. It is not a GM if it can't cope with whatever a GM throws at it. The only thing I lacked in completing my 5th degree black belt, about 15 or so years ago, was a "norm" in one more full-contact tournament. And I wished that I could have said "Oh, you like to kick? Well you can't kick in this round because I don't like kicking and I know you can beat me doing so, so you can't do it, find something else to do." Alas, I couldn't do that, I lost a critical round match, and never had another chance (with kids getting older) of attending a big enough tournament to get that last "norm". But one thing I can tell you. You and I get into a ring for 3 minutes, and within a minute, I'll know what you can and can't do, and I am *not* going to attack your strength, any more than you are going to attack mine. I'm going to attack your weakness full-speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. And if you aren't up to that level of competition, you end up on your back. GM's are just like that. How do you think "anti-computer" was discovered? In a book by David Levy? Or OTB. Hint: Most GM's don't read Levy's stuff on computer chess. :) >> >>And giving them more tournaments to find these openings is suicidal. So >>the key questions to me are: (1) is Fritz the best commercial program? >>answer seems to be yes, if you are talking about playing computer vs >>computer matches. It's proven that on the SSDF it seems. (2) Is fritz or >>any other program a GM? not even close yet. Good chess players find and >>exploit holes in every program running. I think that many programs might >>fit right in the middle of the IM class, although they will not be nearly >>as consistent as IM players, because they will beat an IM on tactics, then >>get crushed in an elementary ending. A PC GM is a ways away, IMHO, still. >> >>Getting closer, but not here. *yet*. But given enough time... > > >Regardless of it as actually DONE OR NOT! the point is that if Fritz were placed > in a tournament setting even just a single tournament,(masquerading as a human) >would it be able to perform at a level equal to that of other GMs in the >tournament. I would say most definitely yes. If it performed at a level equal >to that of GMs then it can be said it performed at GM strength. The result is, >that when you or i play a game against the program using normal play, will it >take advantage of our mistakes to the degree of a GM even a low rated GM. >Arthur Bisguier is old he is a GM, he is 2300+ USCF, Fritz would destroy him in >a match probably even if he did know it was fritz he was playing. So the title >is absolutely inconsequential. The ultimate question is ELO rating. If Fritz is >2450-2500 ELO that's all that's of any importance. I don't think so. I believe that after 2 rounds, everyone would "know". I can pretty well identify a computer after looking at two games using a computer to help me. GM's can do it too. And once they find out, it's all over, all you get from then on is "anti-computer".
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.