Author: blass uri
Date: 10:47:35 08/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 1999 at 12:59:10, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Will Singleton on August 16, 1999 at 02:58:46: >> >>>GM's are by far superior when the topic is understanding the game of chess >>>and that will remain for a very long time and maybe even after 100 years. >>> >> >>Ed, >> >>It's great to see these games on ICC; I really like your initiative. I must >>disagree with your statement above, however. 100 years? Did you perhaps mean >>10 years? > >No typo :-) > >>10 years ago, you were using perhaps a 68020 at 25 mhz. You are now >>running at 600 mhz, effectively about 30x faster (considering cache etc). In 10 years we >>might have 20 ghz machines, which means that a 3 minute think today will >>take 6 seconds then. This is not even considering advances in chess algorithms, >>which will certainly occur. > >This is all very true. > >>So, I must take issue with your concept of "chess understanding," since >>that can only be measured by wins and losses. If a computer beats a GM, by >>definition it has better understood the game. > >I disagree. > >If a computer beats a GM the computer is simply stronger. I consider stronger as >something else than understanding chess. > >>In 10 years, it's clear that no human will be able to contend with commercial >>programs running on off-the-shelf hardware. Since you have a propensity for >>gambling, would you like to make a wager on that? > >I also believe that in 10-15 years a PC is able to beat the strongest human on >earth. > >Doing so this doesn't automatic mean the computer does understand chess >better than the human. > >This is what I mean with my 100 year statement: Look at any GM-COMP game >and you will see that the human ALWAYS gets the initiative. The computer always >has to defend. Why? Because the GM knows how to play chess. The GM >understands chess, the computer can not match the feeling for (long-term) >strategy, the feeling for certain positional long-term sacrifices etc. etc. > >What usually happens is that GM's throw away the gained advantage by >overlooking smart, deep and sometimes very surprising defences of the >computer. > >IMO the current struggle in GM-COMP can also be redefined as: > >"Strong understanding of chess + a not optimal search algorithm (many leaks)" > > versus > >"Average understanding of chess + a perfect search algorithm (hardly any leak)" > >IMO a search-depth of 11-13 plies plus decent human-alike or anti-human chess >knowledge is sufficient to beat GM's to 2600. > >Maybe 14-16 plies is enough to beat GM's to 2700 and maybe 17-20 plies is >enough to catch Kasparov. Who knows... > >But in the end the human knows how to play chess. A computer will never >find moves like Ra1 (Fischer) or Rxd4 (Kasparov) and and and... Ok, maybe >in 100 years :-) Just try this (old and simple) one. I think that Fritz found Rxd4 of kasparov against topalov and Junior with contempt=0(the default value is 15) also could find it. I am also not sure if Rxd4 is the best objective move because topalov could defend by Kb6 and I found that computers can find this move after a long time. Uri
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.