Author: odell hall
Date: 14:55:11 09/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 1999 at 15:02:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 20, 1999 at 09:11:28, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: > >>On September 20, 1999 at 05:48:28, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >> >>>On September 20, 1999 at 03:02:58, Bertil Eklund wrote: >>> >>>>On September 19, 1999 at 09:37:36, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 18, 1999 at 17:44:11, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>By the way, the Rebel Century Performance Rating for the match today was: >>>>>> >> 2553 << >>>>>>which is certainly in the range of Grandmaster ratings. >>>>> >>>>>Rebel's TPR so far is roughly 2480, which is not GM level. Ten games are not >>>>>enough to know much, but taking into consideration that Rebel is the program >>>>>that scored the best in Aegon over the years, this tpr seems to indicate that >>>>>programs do not reach GM level yet at slow time controls and against motivated >>>>>GMs. One more thing: considering that Rebel played these games with a hardware >>>>>much faster than a P200MMX, it seems clear that the SSDF list is quite inflated, >>>>>maybe by some 150 point >>>> >>>>Are you the same Enrique that have played computerchess, for the last 20 years!? >>> >>>Hi Bertil, >>> >>>I already said that "Ten games are not enough to know much". Therefore I am not >>>"so sure". After the games we have so far, I posted some thoughts, that's all. I >>>did not say I had evidence. And it is not only a matter of quantity, but of >>>looking into the games to see what has been going on. Any chess player could >>>have done this, with or without 20 years experience in computer chess. >>> >>>>How can you be so sure after 10-12 games! If only one or two of the games went >>>>another way should it have proven that Rebel was of GM-strength. >>> >>>Maybe, but they didn't go the other way. And you are only talking quantities, >>>while I am also trying to include the quality of the games, as seen by me. It is >>>the combination of both that make me believe that so far programs are probably >>>and in my opinion not GMs. >>> >>>>We can take the games for Fritz5 and use them and we have 2600+ something or >>>>CM6000 >>>>about 2600 or maybe ShredderX one game 2600 or maybe Hiarcs4 on P200MMX about >>>>2500 or Hiarcs6 about 2600 in south-america. Rebel8 played two GM´s in Sweden >>>>One win one draw, shall we use this for a guess?. >>> >>>I think it is best to count current games. Human players know programs better >>>than before and in these games they are motivated, something that has not been >>>always the case. My opinion, of course. >>> >>>>Is this Rebel-challenge the >>>>only valid rating-basis? The match favor the GM´s also, they can prepare for the >>>>opponent and it´s never any problem with the time-controls for the GM´s, as is >>>>the case in a face to face match. Once I played Rebel9 against Gandalf3 after 7 >>>>games Rebel9 was up 7-0. 8 games later the score was 7,5-7,5. >>>>Mr Szub is also sure that Junior4.6 is better then Junior5. He knows that after >>>>studying its style and a few games. I guess that he can be wrong this time. >>>> >>>>The list should be correlated to the reality but we need a better base then >>>>feelings and guesses. I guess that the base of the list is to high but is it 50 >>>>or maybe 250 points, it´s always fun to speculate! >>> >>>Yes, Bertil, I agree. I don't pretend the SSDF to drop 150 points just because I >>>guess you should. In the post you are answering to I say your list "seems" >>>inflated by some 150 points, not that "it is" with all evidence. >>> >>>Now for more speculation (why not? It may be interesting sometimes). Rebel 9 has >>>a rating of 2525 in your list. Rebel 10-5 has been playing with a hardware that >>>is roughly 3 times faster as an average than your P200MMX, which translates into >>>some 100 points. I don't believe that any program is a top GM of 2625, and about >>>this I am convinced, even without evidence to show in court. We both "guess" >>>that the list is inflated. The 150 points excess sounds right to me. That's all. >>> >>>Enrique >>> >>>>Regards Bertil SSDF >>>> >>>> >>>>>I think that someone has been saying all this for years. Hi Bob! :) >>>>> >>>>>Looking at the few 40/2 games played so far by programs against strong human >>>>>opponents, I wonder if results wouldn't be similar if played against 2300 >>>>>people. The positional superiority of a 2300 player is still immense, and for >>>>>them it might be a matter of avoiding tactics, as wise IMs and GMs do when >>>>>playing computer programs. Maybe the Elo system works differently for programs? >>>>> >>>>>Aside form this, I don't think it makes sense to use the same opening book in >>>>>comp-comp and in human-comp games. It is quite absurd to play openings that lead >>>>>to positional games, where programs are quite dumb, and this is happening too >>>>>often. Is it not a better idea to build a gambit-like book that tries to open >>>>>the game and play tactics? Same for playing style. A program can afford to play >>>>>the Orthodox against another program, because neither will understand a thing, >>>>>but against a strong human player it's a mistake. Look, for instance, at Rebel-2 >>>>>yesterday. >>>>> >>>>>Enrique >> >> Do you think preparing a month or more in advanced for a chessprogram could >>really come near seeing a reflection of true strength? I think for a program to >>have this high a rating (2480) after 10-12 games is amazing how many people here >>feel they would have the same rating if everyone got to study and prepare >>against you very minimum your dropping at least 100pts ever go into a lower >>rated players pet line?? This is what it amounts to. (in my opinion) > > >There is an interesting counter-argument. Several people claim that when the >'automatic' programs play on ICC, they have a big advantage, even if the human >plays with a reasonable increment. Agree or disagree? > >If you agree, what about the fact that a GM can play dozens or hundreds of >games, can watch the computer play others, can study the openings it tends to >play, the mistakes it tends to make, etc. IE wouldn't you also agree that >by playing an unlimited number of games, in a public place, that keeping your >electronic player's rating at 3100 is _very_ difficult? > >One of the two issues is not quite correct... Most overlook the difficulties >of an automatic program playing all comers as many games as they want... and >many play lots. IE I have watched Crafty vs Kamsky today go way over 24 games >non-stop. I'd bet Crafty would clean his clock in a surprise meeting where he >had not played it in 6 months. It is amazing that it can _still_ clean his >clock even though he has played hundreds of practice games against it. > >So far, after 31 games, crafty has lost 2 and drawn 4. Rest you can guess. :) It would be interesting to see, how Crafty would do in a GM Challenge, I think it plays very well against humans, It is much better against humans than against computers. I notice when I play it, it seems much more agressive than the average program.
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.