Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 09:07:25 02/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 11:52:36, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 04, 2003 at 10:58:20, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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 > >Please don't give us the DeVito! That is funny but doesn't help, Dann! > >You don't know much about chess! No argument there. I knew who Portisch was, but I never heard of Barcza. For whatever reason, my database said the ELO difference was 700. Clearly an error. >Barcza, guess who this was? A 2100 player? Perhaps in your rotten database. That >was a well educated Ungarian GM who also wrote books. Who created openings. Who >was perhaps in the class of a O'kelly, if you ever heard that name. > >Portisch? We are talking about Lajos, the many times candidate for the world >championships, who beat Larsen on the fly? Who beat even Fischer once? If my >memory doesn't deceive me? > > >It makes me sick that chess is such a difficult sport that so few have a real >access. > >:) Another of life's many tragedies. On the positive side, I have now bookmarked this site: http://www.chessmetrics.com/index.html#NameList and so enormous gaffes of that nature should be somewhat less frequent from me. Not that I will know the answers, but I will at least check before I post on a question of this nature.
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.