Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:32:28 02/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2003 at 16:59:52, Joachim Rang 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! >> >>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... >> >>:) >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >with your conditions you might be right. Under these circumstances GM's actually >could find the weaknesses of the programs and spot them. But your conditions >will be applied in two or three years, to keep the ongoing battle between humans >and comps interesting. >... 2400 was a little low, 2500 should be more precise. ;-) > >For the 41$ - Hamburger, look here: >http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/59654.htm Yes, I saw it. Thanks. Let me use the place here to add a short philosophical remark. People might see my point mainly in the attempt to secure something in advantage of the human players. This is wrong. And it would be ridiculous if I tried to do that. To me something like that sounds like: computers are seen - in principal - as stronger than humans. I have a completely opposite standpoint. So I reflected the aspects of such games. And I came to the conclusion that in the case of GM the depth of calculations could NOT be the point. GM can calculate. So I continued my search. And I found out that these books allowed the machines to play into openings without immediate death. Ok, we can allow that. If we allow that THEN comps are really 2700 players. But do we allow impostering in CC? We want to allow that machines compete in our human championships (it already began in Holland, only one time, thanks God!), which are impostering to be GM? No, we don't want to tolerate that. Many players refused to play Fritz! Or played nonsense and lost very quickly. If a single programmer here could prove that his program could play a difficult opening WITHOUT book, but also without INTERNAL book in the engine, then that particular opening could be allowed for that specific program. Sorry, it's a bit complicated, but coding is sure more difficult. In short, we must get rid of all this impostering and pretention in CC. Of course, CC WILL be THERE for sure in many years. But not now! Why fuzzing around, why filibustering to prevent that people like me can make their point? My basic idea is crystal clear! CC allows still a huge amount of tricks or such but please let's take out plain impostering. And to Mr. Silver: no GM on the World tournament circus could survive if he played on the base of foreign analyses. Rolf Tueschen
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.