Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:10:52 02/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2003 at 06:31:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 18, 2003 at 21:34:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 18, 2003 at 18:16:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>I have made a white paper for a simple question: what is your opinion about >>>Crafty against humans in tournatment mode? I had a littler dispute with >>>Matthew... I said you never claimed GM status for either Crafty or other >>>commercials. Then Matthew said Crafty drew to some unknown (to me!) GM. Does >>>that mean you now say that also Crafty "is" GM in long tournament mode? >>> >>> >> >>First, a clarification. I have _never_ said that Crafty is a GM-level >>player at tournament time controls, namely 40 moves in 2 hours. I believe >>it is clearly a super-GM at blitz (game in 5 minutes). In fact, it is >>most likely a "ultimate-GM" if the time control is really game in 5 minutes, >>period. > >First of all thanks. Amir might respond for the superiority of DJ. > >Then I want to make a little experiment. > >Challenge and Refutation: > >(1) Take GM Roman in a 6 game Blitz with 5' for the game and give Roman 1 >million US$$ in advance cash. If he wins it's all his money. A draw or loss and >he will have to give back the whole money. I bet that Roman will win that >against any Crafty available. Period. :) I would take that bet, and Roman wouldn't. I would take that bet against _any_ player in the world, 5 0 is simply too fast, and the hardware of today is simply too good. The human _might_ eke out a draw or two, and with a little luck, a single win out of six games. That leaves a good result for him at 2-4 which is a bad loss. > >(2) We are making too many wild guessings without exact analyses. In general >people have little experience in psychological experimental design. Again, that >was very clear - for me at least - in 1997 already. The factor 'human' is out of >sight when you chess programmers do your work. That is why Amir could make his >incredible statements. If already a machine is inpredictable in its behavior >[parallelism etc.] then human beings could never be out-calculated. In the final >moment they still could decide for the other option. - I say that you have lots >of data about humans playing comps but in general you know zero about the human >players' motivation. We simply have too little data. So I prefer the theory that >super GM still are stronger than machines also at Blitz. > There are too many games here (5 0) already. There is no doubt that the best GMs can not go toe-to-toe at 5 minute blitz, it is hopeless. I haven't seen a GM win two consecutive games vs Crafty in _years_. Where years is > 5. That is when they play dozens of games in a row too, which gives an indication of the probabilities. I can give you a "lifetime" record of Crafty vs any ICC GM you want (Roman is a tough one as he has used dozens of different names over the years). The longer the time control, the better the human will do, overall. But better forget the 5 0 stuff. I would expect to win at _least_ 9 games for every game I lose, and I would expect to win 5 games for every game I draw (I = crafty of course) at that time control against any GM playing. > > > >> >>Second, I've come to modify my "GM level" a bit. I now suspect that in >>tournaments/matches that span multiple days, that most computer programs can >>play at a modest GM level. Not because they are positional GM players most >>of the time, and not because they are tactically superior to most GM players, >>but because of their consistency and stamina. They don't get tired and will >>play the last game of a consecutive 100 game match just as well as they play >>the first, perhaps even better when you factor in "book learning." Humans >>can't do that, as they get tired. >> >>So we have yet another "superiority" that the machines hold over us. Better >>memory than most (most but maybe not all). No fatigue. No distractability. >>Not subject to illnesses/bad days/etc. Perhaps those things _do_ make up for >>the positional/tactical shortcomings programs exhibit. > > >Objection! > >For the reasons given above you simply can't say that. We have too little data. >Kasparov and the couple of other GM who drew comps in show events are not data >enough. If you buy this fatigue story then you are a very prominent victim of >the propaganda spread around the event in NY. You know how Kasparov is. Of >course he seeks easy excuses for his blunders. And of course Amir tells us that >he has not seen a single blunder in the games. But this is all propaganda. There were plenty of blunders in the games, whether he agrees or not is immaterial, as everyone _else_ knows that if move X draws, and move Y loses, and you play move Y, you blundered. And I agree we don't have a lot of data to support my "stamina" issue _yet_. But it is at least a viable hypothesis that can be tested over time. > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>BTW - your report about such long distance marathon by Roman is what I said. >>>These guys don't need millions to get into fighting mode. Chess itself is >>>intersting enough. And yes, you are right, I do also know how the stamina topic >>>appeared in NY... >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >> >>I have told this story before, but it is worthwhile to repeat. >> >>Roman used to take a lot of abuse on the chess servers (ICC in particular) as >>there are always the "morons" that want to aggravate when they can't play with >>a GM. As a result, he tried many different anonymous handles, but his rating >>would rise to the top of ICC, and he would be "uncovered." >> >>In talking on the phone one morning, I suggested that he think about losing >>games to low-rated players from time to time to suppress his rating and avoid >>discovery. He thought about it and said he was going to try. He was playing >>a FM friend of mine (one that I used to play a lot on ICC) and he made an >>intentional blunder dropping a rook. And he was looking to lose a big chunk >>of rating points. But as I watched, he started playing like a GM again, and >>built up an interesting attack, traded into a won endgame, and won. I asked >>"what in the hell were you thinking?" He chuckled (another phone call) and >>said "after intentionally dropping the rook for a pawn, I sort of got into >>the game and starting playing to see if I could make up for being a rook down." >> >>The point was that it is _hard_ for these guys to lose intentionally, although >>I have no idea how hard it would be if there was a million dollars or two that >>losing might make available to them next year... >> >>Some of them will play as best they can, whether it is blitz, standard, for >>first place or skittles on a chess server. But then of course, some won't... > > >Yes, we know those. They who have got 1 million to attend the show. > >But I have a third chapter for you. > >I want to analyse the situation you told us about Roman and this game against a >FM. Without knowing the game I give you a different interpretation of the story. > >Too often in CC we forget about real chess. CC people have their own logic and >reasoning. But the secret of chess is the concreteness of each single position. >Roman gave away a rook intentiously. But then as a chess player he looked upon >the board position and then he must have seen something "new" or "interesting" >or "extraordinary". NOT in the actual position but far ahead in his mind, before >his inner eyes - his eidetics. It might have been not absolutely clear. His >chances to get some chances might have been small but then his opponent was only >a FM. And Roman, we must remember once was very close to candidate level for the >Wch. His knowledge is still there, perhaps even higher today. My point is that >Roman was not provoked by the loss of the rook as such but by something concrete I hope I didn't say that. IE not "provoked". He just got taken up by the game, and played his best out of a natural competitive spirit. I have done this more than once with my kids. At tennis for example. I learned a long time ago that it is not fun for kids to play something with an adult if the adult smashes them every game. But, on occasion, when they would hit a particularly good shot, I would often rip it back at them without thinking because things happened too fast to think "OK, take a bit of it..." >"in the situation". > You know, also a GM could not invent something out of >nothing. Although he could try, because a FM is miles away from his strength. >BTW this is also the point why I always propose to wait that GM will begin to >work out a real comp strategy. Until now they never did that. The few little >tricks to mate are nothing against a real comp related strategy. We have too >little data. So we can only wait. The rest is propaganda. > >You asked Roman a lot of questions but I doubt that you had the hypotheses in >mind to explorate him. And he like Picasso can't describe 1000 factors with two >words. So all that is still open to research! I can only invite the many >students who read us here. > >I want to end this message with a general remark. Open thinking is very >important. We should always think about possible factors we might have overseen. >And when we have the human factor (the expression is already a joke because then >we have not one but endless many factors) it's always indicated to be extremely >careful before we believe in the final truth of our hypotheses. It's also >important to talk about it because one individual alone might be a genius but >it's impossible to have all factors in mind. > >It would be good if we could take such show events as inspiration for our >research but not as inhibitions to do further research! > >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.