Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:23:40 02/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 05, 2003 at 13:35:10, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >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 > > >Your question was answered in my previous post. In a position a computer doesent >understand, he will make sensless moves and very likely lose, it doesent matter >if the opponent has 2600, 2100, or 1700 Elo. >Of course, this is not the case in human-human play. > >I may have a different viewpoint, therefore the discussion man not be very >productiv. In my oppinion, anti-computer startegies are not the solution >anymore. Maybe they worked 10 years ago, and sometimes even now, but the bigger >the knowledge the engines have, the less effective they will be. I think, they >are not working in tournament play. Period. > >regards >andreas All ok. Thanks. But think about the possibilities for a future competition, perhaps then you see what I am doing right now. Of course - Peter said it - the recompensation for humans must be higher than today. So, what you call "tournament chess" is the project. Best, 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.