Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:23:01 10/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2004 at 05:31:34, Tony Nichols wrote: >On October 19, 2004 at 05:08:18, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 19, 2004 at 04:50:16, Tony Nichols wrote: >> >>>On October 19, 2004 at 03:52:10, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>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 >>> >>> Hi, Uri >>> I'm not familiar with the Israeli league but I will accept your information. I >>>think Human players understand chess programs better today than they did then. I >>>would also say that if the engines had trouble with a 2200 player that helps my >>>argument not yours. I agree that programs have gotten stronger but surley not >>>500 elo. So if programs draw against master level players how can they be better >>>than GMs? >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Tony >> >>I think that the reason is simple. >> >>The 2200 player played for a draw when the GM's wanted to win. >>When you try to make a draw against computers your task is clearly easier. >> >>Uri > > >I agree. However it's not so simple when playing Kramnik!:) >Tony Or maybe it is simpler when your name is different than peter leko. Peter leko did not play for a draw in a correct way. 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.