Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:12:12 02/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 08:21:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 04, 2003 at 06:40:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 04, 2003 at 05:51:17, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >> >>>On February 03, 2003 at 19:05:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On February 03, 2003 at 18:54:54, Peter Hegger wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>...how is it that they now consistently play at the 2700-2800 level? Against >>>>>Kramnik (2810), against Bareev (2729), and now against Kasparov (2807), a >>>>>program is turning in a 2807 performance and very much _holding its own_ >>>>>Calling any modern program a 2500 player is akin to calling the above mentioned >>>>>super GM's 2500 players. >>>>>It also looks to me as though the SSDF list is getting closer to the reality of >>>>>the true state of program prowess than (admittedly) it use to be. >>>>>Any comments welcome. >>>>>Regards, >>>>>Peter >>>> >>>>A pity that you do not read. Show events are NOT a possible tool to calculate >>>>the strength. And hard competition doesn't exist. That's it. I still hold >>>>that comps are 2400 at best in fierce tournament chess. >>>> >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>> >>> >>>First of all, I agree that humans play a lot better chess than computers. I.e. >>>DJ did not mananage to get a reasonable attack against Kasparov in the current >>>match. Humans seem to be much mure creative chess players. >>> >>>On the other hand, I doubt that the average rating performance of computers are >>>much less than that of humans. Or say, they have the same Elo than top players. >>>I.E. the human plays a top game with 47 good moves on a high level and 3 >>>blundering moves in it and will lose against the computer. >> >>I think you make a couple of typical mistakes in your chain of reasoning. You >>completely leave out the idea of strict anti-comp play and I am talking about >>strict = played and tested over a longer period of time. By many, not just one >>or two players. Also you misunderstand Elo. Why should Elo of the players go >>down when they control comps? My 2400 for comps (2003!) is a "vision" if you >>want IF certain conditions would exist. And now let's take a look at chess. >> >>You say that a human makes 3 weak moves per game. I say you are talking about >>human chess with all its delusions and projects. Here however we are talking >>about anti-comp. Now think for a moment. You say that comps play not bad but >>without great highlights. I think we all know that from the imbreeding campaigns >>in SSDF etc. What does that mean? Very simple. The human anti-comp can just >>concentrate on the typical anti strategies. There is no hurry. There is no >>tension. There is no creativity on the side of the machines. What - honestly - >>will you have more??? >> >>I think that most people underestimate the human brain. And surely that of GM. >>Look. A GM has a computer in his brain! How many times must I repeat that? You >>become GM because you have that inborn talent of outstanding memory capacities >>-first. And that is a must! Sine qua non - for all scientists. And then of >>course the necessary talent for chess, which should be discovered with the age >>of 5 or 6 years. Now the irritating news from psychology is: that memory has not >>too much to do with say artistic genius in general. It could well be that you >>land in a boring bureaucratic job but you know all the numbers of the telephone >>book of say NY. That is also why chess GM are not by force deep thinkers. Not to >>speak of philosophers. Lasker is the exception. >> >>That aspect is important because I must explain here why up to now not too many >>GM really started to perform against comps. And those few who perform, do that >>in show events with the usual hoax we know from simuls and other exhibitions. >>That is mostly about money nothing else. My theory is that IF a few clever GM >>would begin to compete against comps we would realise very fast how weak the >>machines are in reality. IF humans develop a special 'counter technique'. But >>make no mistake: you must be able to calculate lines up to say five moves. So >>all amateur players and patzers below 1700 bye bye. :) >> >>Know what I mean? Actually we have a complete fog of hot air in CC because NEVER >>at least in public that has been shown by GM how serious the weaknesses of comps >>really are. In public and for money it's part of the deal that GM simply don't >>touch it what is weak. Or don't _talk_ about it. >> >>So, perhaps now you know when the number 2400 could exist and in which >>conditions. >> >> >>>If it is a 2800 >>>player, then the computer may have played the weaker moves, but won in the end >>>and deserves reating of that level too. >> >>Fine. But the comps would also lose against 1900 or 2100 player! And that would >>NEVER happen to GM! Period. :) > >losing against 1900 or 2100 player can happen to a GM and I know of cases when >it happened. > >In one of them the GM fell to a prepared trap that the 2100 discovered in >analysis before the game. > >In another case the GM simply did not play well and did mistakes so he lost >against 1900 player. > >Uri Please give exact headers or scores. And we were talking about 2600-2700 GM not 2445 GM from institutions for seniors. Please also exclude first rounds in Opens because that is show event and commercial. :) Rolf Tueschen
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.