Author: Chris Carson
Date: 10:20:56 02/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2003 at 12:02:31, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 04, 2003 at 19:13:22, Andreas Guettinger wrote: > >>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 > >I must admit that I am slow. With your reply you gave me a good lesson for a >phenomenon I underestimated. Now I know why it's so difficult for inventors or >scientists with new theories or whole systems have so many dufficulties to >pesuade collegues and people. > >I put it into a short sentence. While I am talking about the future and perhaps >a better system in comp-human games with view on tournament chess NOT new shows, >you take every existing possibility to misunderstand me in my views on the >possible future with mainly claiming the factual existence of the present. I see >not a single idea that _you_ could add to my ideas. All what you have in mind is >that I must be wrong because I seek a different reality than the present. > >Here in your answer you make a basic fault (about the possible development of a >different chess attempt when it goes against comps) and then of course you are >correct. What is that fault? > >You see the actual stats and take it at face value. What does that mean? You >pretend that the actual play (also by GM) is the final reply on CC. But exactly >this is wrong! Anticomp strategies are just a start in the direction if a >"fierce competition" would begin some day in future. Of course you are correct >without such a perspective. You see what I mean? > >And then: you did not answer my question! > >I asked you: Could you explain why a human like a 2100 player could beat a 2700 >comp IF a 2100 human player could never win against a GM with 2700 in a serious >game! Please answer that question. Just do me a favour. > >Rolf Tueschen Player X is rated 2100, Player Y is rated 2700, that is a 600 point difference. Given the rating difference, Player Y (2700) should win a large percentage of the games, but not all the games. If Player X (2100) could get Player Y (2700) to play 1000 games, then Player X will win/draw a "very small" percentage. Also, by the end of the 1000 games, Player X will have learned a lot (hopefully) and will be a lot stronger player (higher rating). The problem is that Player X (2100) never plays Player Y (2700), so the chance of Player X (2100) winning/drawing a single game or improving from playeing Player Y (2700) is nil. However, Player X (2100) can buy a (2700) program/computer and play it all the time, learn weakness, get stronger against this one opponent and then reset the program to initial settings. Then Player X (2100) can play a match and score higher (200 to 300 points) than the delta (600 point difference) rating predicts. If Player X (2100) is smart, then buy the (2700) computer/program and improve your game with it, after a time you will be a better overall player and earn those extra points. Just my opinion. :) (2700) program/computer = DF, DJ, CT, Hiarcs or Shredder on a 2Ghz Intel or AMD. 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.