Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 16:13:22 02/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 16:49:01, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 04, 2003 at 15:54:32, Andreas Guettinger wrote: > >>It can. With tactics, even weaker comps can beat GMs. See Kramnik and Kasparov. >>Be careful, I studied many hours statistics at university. But you're right, it >>is statistics. >> >>Your anti-comp strategy system IS a myth. I laugh always when I see this >>argument. If one traines anti-computer, then he manages to get the computer to >>look really silly in ONE game, but the 50 games he lost until he got this game >>he never shows. Your anti-computer strategy is unsuitable for tournament play!! >> >> >>But maybe you manage to win a 24 game tournament against a top program with your >>anti-computer strategy? Show us! :) >> >>regards >>Andreas > >Please say just a few words about the phenomenon that weak players could beat >2700 comps. Would you believe if I claimed the same for a match against human >GM? I think that is the reason why we should discuss the whole question a bit >deeper. I would not believe you, if you claimed that. :) It is not my intension to deny that there are positions that computers just are not good in. Their knowledge is just not sufficient (maybe about kingsafety or whatever) and they make mistakes. Because the knowledge of the human counterplayer is almost always bigger, such mistakes are often very easy to see and take advantage of it. But what I wanted to point out, that also humans have "weak" points. The knowledge of a GM is extrordinary, but sometimes he just doesen't see a hidden response and makes an error. Although he calculates at least as deep or deeper as the computer, he cannot take into consideration every possible response (in time). Computer can easily do so, indeed the calculate also the most sensless or maybe hidden threats. Also the performance of a human always oscillates because of personal fitness. Therefore, the computer gets its chance against the strong players to win Elo. Let's say a 2600 Elo rated computer loses 1 or 2 games in 20 against a 2100 Elo player, but wins 11 : 9 against a 2600 human player. On the other side, a 2600 Elo GM loses 0 games against a 2100 opponent, but loses 9 : 11 against another 2600 GM player. Computer: 1. match: E = 2600 + 10*(19-20*0.98) = 2594 2. match: E = 2594 + 10*(11-20*0.5) = 2604 1. match: E = 2600 + 10*(20-20*0.98) = 2604 2. match: E = 2604 + 10*(9- 20*0.5) = 2594 So, through losing 1 out of 20 games against the 2100 player the computer loses nearly no Elo, but it wins Elo by managing a victory by defeating the 2600 player. In the end it ends up with more Elo than the 2600 Elo GM losing against his GM friend. Only because the computers lose some games very clearly because of lack of knowledge, I would not rate them as very weak. >Just anothother point. If you have studies stats you must know that your former >sentence is wrong. That if I put the progs on 2400 I must also put the best >humans on 2400. This is nonsense. > Maybe there was a misunderstanding here. I wanted to point out that both humans and computers have their "drawbacks", and it's not justified to just "downgrade" one of the two groups to the 2400 level. Actually, if a human gets outpowered by a computers tactics, its not right to say he played like "2400" because a 2400 player would have lost more than ever. And similarly, if the comp doesen't handle a position correctly, it's not right to say he played like a "2400", because most often even a 2100 would have done better. Let's just say the played not at the best. Computers can very easily be improved, but can humans? :) regards Andreas
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.