Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 02:16:02 01/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2005 at 04:34:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 01, 2005 at 08:52:13, Clive Munro wrote: > >>Forgive me if this question has already been discussed but I havn't read all the >>threads on this site. >>Has the time been reached that a commercial PC programme can beat Kasparov and >>co over 40moves in 2 hours control? For instance if we had a 10 game match over >>say two weeks could a commercial programme running on the latest retail hardware >>(not 200 pcs linked together etc) beat the top GMs? >>If not how close is it? >> >>Best >> >>Clive > >It depends upon payment. if you pay the GM regardless of result, what is >happening always as the computer game company is way too much involved in the >marketing it generates, then the top GM will of course not care and play 4-4 or >something or lose. > >On the other hand if you only pay him when he wins, he will beat the hell out of >you. > >Yet top GM's are too demanding. We know kasparov wants 1 or 2 million 'match >fee' paid. You have no option if you want to play kasparov. he will demand >payment in advance with a bank garantuee. > >Kasparov is simply the special case here. he draws so much publicity that you >should play him if you can afford it. Yet playing him each few years would be >too expensive for the sales in return :) > >The problem of other GM's is that you get near to zero publicity except within >the chess world itself. You can play an (ex-)FIDE world champ for just a couple >of thousands. No problem. > >Yet he'll demand also payment in advance: "to show up". > >He can then give a show without using any of his careful prepared openings, as >those openings are used against humans only. If a GM has a novelty he'll sure >won't play it against a computer. Shame. > >What we DO know is that the programs have increased in playing strength REALLY a >lot last few years. > >Way more than i had expected myself to be honest. > >So a few years ago there was just one time someone who offered to GM's matches >in the next form. If they would lose, they got nothing. If they drew then 250 >dollar, if they won then they got $500. > >Many very weak GM's took up the challenge and played Rebel. Rebel sure is a good >program against humans, no question about it. Those real weak GM's 24xx rated >and 25xx rated easily drew rebel and some actually won. > >If you organize again such a match i would expect you will see more of a >difference. Certain 'profitting' type GM's who managed to kick Rebel by for >example a sudden attack, they will more and more lose. > >However you still can't help certain players who play always the same opening >and also use it against the computer. > >Offer IM Ziatdinov a match against a computer. Or offer GM Boris Kreiman a match >against a computer. Especially the latter will just destroy it, no matter how >many processors you use. > >He'll play a good opening and destroy it. > >Want to find out? > >Just pay him $500 a game, for each game he beats a machine of your choosing in >40 in 2. > >Don't even offer money when he draws i would say. > >What will the result of a 8 game match be? > >Well that depends heavily upon what type of reward you give. > >If you offer $500 only for wins and nothing for draws, expect 3-5 wins from the >GM. If you offer $4000 for winning a 8 game match, he'll beat you with 5 draws >and 2 white wins and 1 loss from GM side. Just enough to cash in the money. > >I specifically mention Kreiman here, because he has a good opening and has >experience playing software. > >I know so many GM's who will perhaps even lose a match from me if i prepare >well, as their openings suck ass, and they would not prepare a match against me >nor against the computer, and they have zero chance against any serious >preparement. All software programs are pretty well prepared because of the >openings book, but very little are really in depth prepared. > >Just mention the GM name, i'll lookup the openings the dude plays, and i can >already give you a pre-prediction. > >Sutovksy? no, not a chance, he'll lose from Nimzo1998. >IM Ziatdinov? yes, makes a good chance against the software. >GM Ikonnikov? yes he'll even destroy software long after world champs have won >from software. Ikonnikov knows he is tactical weak and plays every day in ultra >safe anti-tactics mode and does do so by playing closed positions preferably. >Even against 1.e4 !!!! He'll destroy anything. >Offer him $100 for a draw, $250 for a win, and promise 20 games. >This will be disastreous for your software. > >Rating of those guys doesn't really matter anymore when playing the computer. >Personal style and motivation and 'bugfree' play are more important. I feel >that's the difference now against todays hyperagressive software. I half-agree here. It's true that all engines still have massive problems. Someone with the positional judgement & opening repertoire of a top player and enough tactical accuracy could crush them. I'm not sure though that any human could pull it off. Kramnik had a big money incentive to win, was well-prepared, has a clean sound style - and still couldn't get it done. Chess just has too much tactics. Vas
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.