Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:52:10 10/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2004 at 02:56:31, Tony Nichols wrote: >On October 19, 2004 at 02:31:54, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>Several years ago, back before RGCC even existed (before Rec.games.chess split), >>computers were lucky to beat human masters. Then the masters fell, then the >>international masters, and now computers are as good as most GMs, maybe as good >>as all but the top GMs, and maybe somewhat better than the top GMs. Who knows. >>The point, however, is that progress is indeed being made, and it doesn't show >>any sign of abating. >> >>My questions are these: Will computers ever become so strong that GMs will feel >>lucky even to draw? Will the percentage of GM versus computer draws slowly >>diminish, even among the top humans, so that computers will someday completely >>and totally dominate? >> >>Remember...chess isn't a solved game. Perhaps white always win. So as computers >>improve, they should begin to win more and more often as their strength comes to >>approximate perfect play. But even if white doesn't always win, it may >>nevertheless be that if the 2nd best move is made in any position, that side is >>lost. Maybe perfect play can only draw and anything else loses. And just which >>side do you think might make the 2nd best move...the human or some future >>Quantum-computing beast? >> >>Another reason to believe that eventually even the strongest humans will be on >>the losing side: Recently, it was posted that as computers have become faster, >>programs authors have actually been REMOVING knowledge from their evaluation >>function. In other words, deeper searches are better than explicit knowledge, >>this presumably because chess has proven to "consist" more of combinatorial >>tactics than of positional strategy. >> >>Accordingly, it would seem that the humans are the ones with the "horizon >>effect" (Surprise!!), meaning that the combinatorial tactics that computers >>handle quite nicely just doesn't reduce as much to positional rules as we might >>like. Sure, humans might learn a few tricks from computers as computers continue >>to improve, but once we've lost the lead, we won't ever regain it. What happens >>when a computer regularly searchs to double the number of plies we see today. >>Can a human GM even draw such a beast? >> >>Roger > > > > > Hi Roger, I believe that most GM's can easily make a + score against the >computers. In that case they could prove it in the israeli league when the result was importnat for their teams and not only for themselves by beating humans convincingly when the teams could choose the person to play against the computer but they did not do it even there and score near 50%. I remember for example that Yona kossashvili lost against Fritz6 and we are talking about human who did 6/6 in humans against machines in 1997. I remember that computers had bigger problems against weaker players and 3 chess programs could only draw against arnold hasidovsky that has rating near 2200. Remember that computers today are clearly better than the level they were in the time of the Israeli league so my guess is that most GM's cannot have positive score against the machines. Uri
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.