Author: Graham Laight
Date: 07:34:50 10/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2004 at 10:19:32, Peter Skinner wrote: >On October 13, 2004 at 09:36:13, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On October 13, 2004 at 09:09:05, Peter Skinner wrote: >> >>>On October 13, 2004 at 07:51:42, Graham Laight wrote: >>> >>>>I refer you to http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?391364 , and I >>>>would be interested to read your comments! >>> >>>One tournament would hardly be a basis to determine the strength of a human or a >>>computer. >> >>This is a good point. However - the results I'm getting back from the simulator >>(linked above) are seriously at odds with some assumptions that some members in >>this thread seem to hold: >> >>1. That the computers at Bilbao had a roughly equal chance of winning. If you >>create a high probability of winning (in order to justify Hydra and Fritz's >>results), then you end up with a startlingly low probability of Junior getting >>the low score that it did - EVEN WITH ONLY 4 GAMES. >> >>2. Joachim used a 50% probability of winning in his post to get acceptable >>probabilities for the 3 different outcomes (3.5/4 x 2 and 1.5/4). However - this >>is at odds with what Dr Hyatt wrote - which is that when contemplating computer >>chess strength, I should "think lower" >>(http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?391290) >> >>IMO, in terms of what members have been writing in this thread, these are VERY >>SIGNIFICANT points. >> >>-g > >Well many including myself and Dr.Hyatt have been saying for years that >computers are not stronger than humans. They might be equal to humans but not >stronger. > >Computers still have the major flaw in long term planning, and positional >management in a game. This is where the human GM excels, and crushes the >computer opponent. > >If you talk to Amir, I am sure he is quite pleased with 3 draws and only 1 loss >vs these GM's. I am just as sure that Robert would be happy with such a result. > >It is common thinking that computers are dominant in the game of chess, and the >loss by Junior shows just how far computers have to come. Just as the games by >Shredder on ICC at 120/0 show that it is hardly the ideal opponent for humans, >yet is the strongest when it comes to playing computers. At the risk of being argumentative, I'm afraid I disagree with your view. Between them, Fritz and Hydra score 7/8 in Bilbao. I have just run the simulator (http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?391364) for an 8 game tournament, with the win probability at 33%, the draw probability at 34%, and the lose probability at 33%. If you truly believe that GMs can crush computers at will (implied by you 4 paragraphs above), then these odds are very generous. The results? 0.52% probability of achieving 7 points 0.09% probability of achieving 7.5 points 0.03% probability of achieving 8 points That's only a 1/160 probability of being able to score that high. That's not right! -g >Any opinion of strength based on one result, or tournament is just that. An >opinion. Opinions are just like assholes.. everyone has one. > >Peter
This page took 0.01 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.