Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 10:43:16 01/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2005 at 10:00:43, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On January 02, 2005 at 05:16:02, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>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 > >You have to admit Kramnik's match against Fritz was incredibly suspicious. >First, Kramnik *embarrases* Fritz in their first 4 games, then he makes A) a 1 >ply blunder and B) a ridiculous sacrifice to even the score. > >anthony Not any more suspicious than the other man-machine matches. It's the normal story - when the human wins he completely outplays the machine, when the human loses he either overlooks something or tries something crazy. Vas
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.