Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:11:27 02/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2003 at 07:40:11, Albert Silver wrote: >On February 04, 2003 at 18:20:31, Chessfun wrote: > >>On February 04, 2003 at 16:21:21, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On February 04, 2003 at 16:04:30, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On February 04, 2003 at 11:35:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 04, 2003 at 07:46:48, Joachim Rang 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>you are the only one... a pity that YOU don't read: >>>>>> >>>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/columns/column.asp?pid=160 >>>>>> >>>>>>Quote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Discussing this with ChessBase director and computer chess guru Frederic >>>>>>Friedel, we surmise that today's top programs play consistently at a 2500-2600 >>>>>>level of chess quality. The difference is that they instantly and mercilessly >>>>>>punish every human mistake and almost never let a winning position slip. This >>>>>>near-elimination of the margin for error pushes their practical performance up >>>>>>toward the 2800 level. >>>>> >>>>>You are correct. I didn't know that quote. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>>But please consider that Fred is no longer on science but on heavy business and >>>>>money. I know for sure that we would understand if I could explain what I meant. >>>>>Most people don't read - what is meant - but only what they can decrypt with >>>>>their spectacles. But that is sufficient for the opticians but not for Rolf. >>>>> >>>>>I will try it in shortcut mode. >>>>> >>>>>I hold the following theory: >>>>> >>>>>1.) Human tournament chess rules! >>>> >>>>>2.) identity of chess programs! >>>> >>>>>3.) high recompensation if humans beat chess programs! >>>> >>>>>4.) in a defined period of time, say half a year, the progs are forbidden to be >>>>>changed; new games into book are allowed, techno bugs are allowed to be >>>>>corrected; but the chess system of the engine version jan-june is constant; >>>>>books are allowed but without lines no computer ever could solve actually; >>>>>tables must be discussed by the nasters themselves and possibly forbidden and >>>>>reduced or such! >>>> >>>>>Now my thesis: Under these defined conditions progs would decrease in strength >>>>>(Elo performance) down to 2400 the average. Max. at 2500! >>>> >>>> >>>>Interesting as 1 and 3 are already pretty current and 2 is only IMO a marginal >>>>difference. 4 now here is an interesting one, how do you take away knowledge >>>>gained by the masters in much the same way as you intend to do with a PC >>>>program. Also what about learning, allowed?. Then let the "nasters" sic, decide >>>>whether PC's can play with tablebases, wonder what the answer would be lol. >>>> >>>> >>>>>Now let me know what you think. Also let me know please if Fred said something >>>>>out of his new McDonalds for freaks where you can eat Hamburgers for over 40 >>>>>dollars each... >>>> >>>> >>>>Frederic owns a McDonalds?, gotta love his business sense. >>>> >>>>Sarah. >>> >>>It seems as if the English could be disturbing the debate. But keep on with your >>>free-style comments. Very telling. >> >> >>Debate? never knew it was that but whatever. >> >> >>>As to the masters should define, I meant to keep out of it because I don't >>>understand why what should be allowed. See the actual event and its rules. >>> >>>Then your first point with the alleged taking away of knowledge, you should >>>explain. I see no take-away of knowledge if books are not allowed with data a >>>comp could never find. That is as if I would let play a human kid with GM >>>analysis written on paper or whatever. I want to forbide impostering in CC. >> >>You don't allow a computer to be given additional knowledge by it's programmers >>but allow naturally a human to gain knowledge over that period....makes no >>sense. >> >>Sarah. > >Yes, this is the 3rd time I see him try to debate this, but there have no doubt >been others I was fortunate enough to miss. I gunned this idea down a long time >ago, showing that many of the brilliancies and lines played by today's masters >could not necessarily be found on their own by them. The example I gave was >simply Marshall's gambit in the Ruy. No one played it prior to him, even though >he had it up his sleeve for 10 years as the story goes, and after, it fell into >disrepute for 30 years until some Russian analysts came upon ...c6. Again, no >one before saw this, so why presume that all of today's masters could come up >with both 9...d5 AND ...c6 on their own without benefitting from their >predecessors' analysis? Just a rehash of old stuff for a new audience. > > Albert I invite also Mr. Silver to behave. I don't rehash, I have no agenda, and my point was NEVER refutated or proven wrong by anyone! I say my point. Of course all kind of people try to defamate on the base of false quotation or false interpretation. I won't discuss this any further with Mr. Silver in special for that reason. Here because also Sarah missed the point I give a second and last explanation to "Sarah". Please do only quote me with correct statements, do not simply twist around what I said. Where did I say that I wanted to forbid new stuff by the programmers/ book authors? The only point I made is this: a computer should NOT be doped with data (chess lines) it had no chance to play in reality without book. That is forbidden in all rules of FIDE. That is as if a human player would play with GM analysis. But he hasn't understood it and therefore he must have the lines in his book and he reads during the game in that book. As I said that is forbidden. There is one good counterargument. People here (also Bob) claimed that also masters and GM would do that all the time. Only they have a good memory and don't need a book to save the lines. But is that really true? Do GM play on a base of other experts??? Of course not. To believe it is simply premature. Of course such analyses could come from others but they are then analysed by the GM themselves. Ok, it's true, we could NEVER make sure that a comp-human game is _absolutely_ fair. But we should, no, we must, define clear limits for the computer side, who is normally without any kind of limits if comp-comp. But against human players that must be done. And now everybody can see that my point has zero to do with Mr. Silvers Marshall Gambit. What the gentleman does is odd defamation because he simply doesn't get the true content of my point. To Sarah I say, please try to find open questions in my description and I will try to respond. To Mr. Silver, this was the last answer, because you have an agenda and are not interested in the development of new features for comp-human games. I have no interest in continual bashing and defamation. Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.02 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.