Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 07:58:20 02/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 09:12:12, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. :) [Event "It (open)"] [Site "Budapest HUN"] [Date "1960.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Portisch, Lajos"] [Black "Barcza, Gedeon"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D66"] [Variation "QGD: Orthodox, Main Line, 8...h6 9.Bh4"] 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. Nf3 Nbd7 8. Rc1 c6 9. Bd3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 b5 11. Bd3 a6 12. a4 b4 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14. Ne4 f5 15. Ng3 c5 16. d5 Bf6 17. dxe6 fxe6 18. Qb3 Kh8 19. Bc4 Nb6 20. Bxe6 Qe8 21. Bxc8 Rxc8 22. Nxf5 Qxa4 23. Qe6 Qd7 24. Qxb6 Qxf5 25. Ke2 Bxb2 26. Qxh6+ Qh7 27. Qxh7+ Kxh7 28. Rc2 Bf6 29. Nd2 a5 30. Ne4 c4 31. Nxf6+ Rxf6 32. Ra2 Rc5 33. f4 b3 34. Ra3 Rb6 35. Kd2 c3+ 36. Kc1 Rd5 37. e4 Rd2 38. Kb1 Rd1+ 0-1
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.