Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 15:02:37 01/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2005 at 16:11:01, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On January 02, 2005 at 13:43:16, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>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 > >That is why I am suspicious of ALL the man-machine matches :) :) > >anthony I think it's pretty normal. When you play somebody who's really good at something, he'll make you look really bad at it. In comp-comp the computer positional weaknesses get masked ... ditto for tactical weaknesses in human-human ... 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.