Author: Terry Giles
Date: 15:01:46 10/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2004 at 06:23:01, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I think It's all a matter of time, one day, assuming that effort is maintained in improving chess software/hardware, the computer will be king and probably unbeatable. It wasn't all that long ago when some very sensible people were adamant that no computer could take a single game off a world chess champion. I personally believe that by 2010 no grandmaster will be able to win a match against the best chess computer. Terry Giles.
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.