Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:58:57 10/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2004 at 10:34:50, Graham Laight wrote: >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! Please remember that probability = probabability. _not_ absolute truth. > >-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 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.