Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:59:01 07/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 1999 at 11:45:27, Christophe Theron wrote: >On July 12, 1999 at 11:29:24, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On July 12, 1999 at 06:47:48, Andrew Williams wrote: >> >>[snip] >>> >>>I'm not trying to "drop out the chess half" of computer chess. I just >>>think that talking about which human player is going to play in which >>>upcoming tournament is *completely* off-topic in this forum. This forum >>>works very well because the vast majority of threads are about computer >>>chess. I think we should all try to keep it that way. >>> >>>Best regards >>> >>>Andrew >> >>BTW, I was being a little facetious here, but the point is valid. EVERY superGM >>game should be analyzed move by move by the programs in order to determine >>whether or not the programs have any chance of coming up with the same move. It >>is only by understanding why superior human players make a given move that one >>can start to understand how to improve the programs beyond their 1700 level >>chess playing knowledge level of today. The reason that I say 1700 (probably a >>high estimate) is that programs do not have REAL sophisticated chess knowledge >>in them. If I could calculate 100 kNPS, then I would be about a 2600 or 2700 >>player as well. >> >>The only way to get programs better is to understand the best moves of the best >>players on the planet. To do that, you should be talking about the games and >>tournaments of those players. To draw the line between the superGMs and the >>programs / hardware / algorithms / cctournaments is to limit the breadth of >>where you can actually go with computer chess. Why should we limit our minds? >> >>KarinsDad :) >> >>PS. An interesting experiment may be to limit various programs to 6 ply (the >>average distance an average player may search) and see how well they perform. >>From this, a rough estimate of a given program's chess knowledge level could be >>made. This experiment has probably been done before at various ply. Does anyone >>know whether it has been done and what the results were? > > >I can give some data. Chess Tiger 11.8 played in April in a human tournament. I >was using a 386 SX 20MHz notebook and 2Mb hash tables. > >On this computer, and given the time control (game in 30 minutes), Tiger was >only able to search between 5 to 7 plies deep. Say 6 plies in average. > >Tiger won this tournament with 6.5 points out of 7. The FIDE Elo performance was >above 2000. > >So I don't think my program has "1700 level chess playing knowledge". And I >think this applies as well to many other good chess programs. I think Rebel or >Genius could have easily won the tournament too. > > > > Christophe
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.