Author: odell hall
Date: 22:47:53 09/04/98
Go up one level in this thread
> It is an interesting idea. Though, I do not share it. First of all, how would >you measure that a chess program/computer is better than a GM against amateur >players (A-class or experts). By the average number of moves in the games? From >my personnal experience, it is just the opposite that I have seen! An expert >player of my friends defeats one of the SSDF top program (Genius 3.0) about 1 >time for every 3 games, while a Master I know wins about 2 times in every 3 >games against the same program. I did make several draws against the same Genius >3.0 program myself (an A or B-player) but NEVER against these 2 players, though >I did not play a great deal of serious games against them. > > > Also, it is not just their superior positionnal knowledge that makes the GMs >what they are. It is also their superior opening knowledge, their superior >tactical calculation's habilities, their superior ending knowledge etc. In >tactical positions, they calculate more precisely and deeper than the weaker >players (take a look at Kasparov's games, as well as those of Fischer, >Anderssen, Murphy, Tal, Janowsky, Marshall, Spielmann, Alekhin). > > > Computers are known for their exceptionnal tactical habilities : if a forced >mate exists in their horizon, they never (almost) miss it! Same thing about if >they can win/trap your queen or any other piece. Moves, to which several >annotators have added one or several "!", just take a few seconds for modern >programs to "discover" and prefer. > > > But at long tactics or "true" sacrifices, computers aren't too good. In one >game Tal sacrificed a piece against Smyslov. In the book (was one of a friend, >so I don't have it here) Tal was giving Smyslov as being lost after the >sacrifice. I have had Genius look at the positions from about game moves after >the sacrifice and for several hours. Almost all the way, the program was seeing >SMYSLOV as winning, until after about 10-12 moves, it SAW that Smyslov was lost! >Then, I went back, letting the program "think" for about 1 hour on the position >PRECEEDING the sacrifice. It was preferring the same losing move as Smyslov did! >Here is another example : Bronstein playing a chess program (would have to >search to fing which one) in an Aegon's tournament. Bronstein sacrificed a piece >and blasted the program tatically! I tried the same position on my programs and, >as I remember, they saw nothing good for Bronstein in that sacrifice, though >later they admitted he was winning. What is fun in that is that Bronstein just >took a few seconds (at most 1 minute) to make the winning sacrifice. After the >game, he just said he KNEW it was winning and did not have to calculate >anything! In fact, he had so much experience with such positions that his >brain/instinct was telling him that it was winning! So, some GMs are so good at >tactics that they don't need to always calculate everything when in familiar >waters. I myself had a great win against Chessmaster 4000 in the first half of >the 90's. It claculated a very pretty combination that took me by surprise and >won one of the pawns on my castle : I hadn't even seen that! After that, >tripling the pieces on the g-file and, I got the initiative and the advantage >and managed to win! There was also a nice sacrifice I made against a weak >computer Advanced Chess Challenger Voice), in 1984, that gave me the win. >Accepting the sacrifice means losing : it takes 12 plies for Fritz 4.01 to not >accept the sacrifice (though even for me, who is not even an expert, it is >EVIDENT just at the first sight that it is not good at all to accept the >sacrifice! > > The only way I see that a GM could have trouble against an amateur player is >if he underestimate him, not paying too much attention to the game nor taking >his opponent seriously. > > >Serge Desmarais Hey Serge do me a favor? If possible could you post these games where an expert level player beat genius 3.0 1-3 games and the Master 2-3 could you specifiy what the time controls were and on what processor. I find it extremely hard to believe that Gen 3.0 could get beat 1-3 games by an expert. I have personally played my genius against both experts and masters and it has won nearly every game!! My time controls were game in 30 and the processor was a 486/100mhz !!!!
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.