Author: Chris Carson
Date: 13:24:48 02/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 15:25:46, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 04, 2003 at 14:11:09, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On February 04, 2003 at 13:31:00, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On February 04, 2003 at 13:10:57, Chris Carson 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. :) >>>>> >>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>> >>>>This Just ended 1/31/03: >>>> >>>>Auckland International Open Chess Tournament - Pairings and Results >>>> Round 9 Results >>>>No Name Fed Rtg Result Name Feder Rtg >>>> >>>>1 McLaren, Leonard NZL 2274 1:0 GM Sermek, Drazen SLO 2577 >>>>2 FM Watson, Bruce NZL 2266 .5:.5 IM Froehlich, Peter GER 2421 >>>> >>>>There are a lot of these, just look in TWIC, you will find 300 point underdogs >>>>winning or drawing games all the time, this is just the latest example. There >>>>are also plenty of examples of larger ELO differences with the lower rater >>>>player winning. McLaren has no title, but does have the win over a GM. >>> >>>The problem with finding 2600+ players against sub 2000 players is that they >>>don't meet very often at 40/2 OTB. >>> >>>With a 600 Elo difference, only 3% of the points will be won by the weaker >>>player, and it will be hard to find hundreds of such games to make finding one >>>likely. >>> >>>How many serious tournament games does Kasparov have against sub-2000 players in >>>the past 10 years? I would guess not very many. >> >>Yes, 2600+ vs 2200- is very rare, even for Open events. However, a 1500 player >>can play Fritz7 on a 2Ghz machine as often as they like. Find weakness, learn >>good anti-computer skills and get a score that is higher than predicted (if for >>no other reason than resetting the program and starting over with the new >>knowledge). >> >>I have doubts that a below 2400 player has much of a chance against DJ, DF, >>Hiarcs, Shredder or CTiger on 3Ghz machines or faster under these match >>conditions (let alone tournament format) with the programmers running the >>program. >> >>Best Regards, >>Chris Carson > >Could you please elaborate why anti-comp shouldn't work for Eduard-like people? > >Rolf Tueschen I never said it would not work for Eduard-like people, but I have not been shown that it will work for that same group. Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.