Author: Albert Silver
Date: 20:07:52 12/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 1999 at 20:03:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>>That's exactly the point. Using a 386sx-20MHz again and again against players
>>>that understand where the weaknesses of the program are is a terrible test,
>>>believe me.
>>>
>>>For years, they wanted to play against Chess Tiger because it was fun to beat
>>>"the" computer.
>>>
>>>Tiger had no learning, and usually the same player tried to play the same
>>>unsound king attack over and over until he won. Usually it took several trials
>>>because the human player would do a tactical mistake. I did not prevent them
>>>from doing so.
>>>
>>>I have learned a lot with this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>
>>I understand, and this brings to mind Ed's comment sometime ago in which he
>>explained how hard it was nowadays to see where and when Rebel was improving or
>>not, simply due to the depth and strength of the program. Naturally, it is much
>>easier to see what it is doing wrong at 6-7 plies than 11-12, nevertheless the
>>difference between a 2000 rated player and an GM rated 2500 is not merely one of
>>depth of calculation. Naturally, the GM is calculating far deeper, but there is
>>more involved. Suppose your program is getting 6-7 plies in a long game on your
>>386 and as such you have really maximized the knowledge and performance
>>according to what you have available. All the same, there are probably certain
>>things that simply cannot be done on a 386 that could be implemented on a more
>>powerful computer, because that more powerful computer has an edge that goes
>>beyond merely doing the same thing the 386 does but faster. This is why it is
>>impossible to properly compare programs like DB or Cray Blitz with other PC
>>programs. That is why comments like "if Hiarcs ran on a Cray it would be
>>stronger than Cray Blitz" have no meaning, as the program is inseparable from
>>the hardware. I think that as hardware develops, new things are possible in
>>programs that weren't possible in the past, but at the same time these newer
>>generation programs won't be retro-compatible, because what they do is only
>>possible with this new hardware.
>
>I'm seeing a big piece of crap here already refuted by De Groot
>many tens of years ago.
>
>He investigated the difference between what we would call now
>2200 players and international masters,
>however at standards of these times it woudl be a comparision
>between IMs and GMs
>
>One of the questions of the investigation was:
>Do GMs see deeper?
>
>Answer: NO
>
>Do GMs calculate more lines?
>
>Answer: NO
Crap? I really don't believe that. First of all, regarding the difference
between IMs and GMs, I'm sure there are plenty of cases where you are quite
correct, just as the opposite is also probably true. I would like to point out
that, I wasn't speaking about IMs and GMs though but 2000 players and GMs. IMs
and GMs are defined by rating at a nominal difference of 100 points by FIDE if
we are to take into account that the minimal rating to become an IM is 2400 and
that of a GM 2500. The difference in the norms is similar, and as many rate a
ply (for computer chess) as high as 70 points, one can say that the difference
could be one of 2 plies, or not too much. Still, I can easily believe that the
difference isn't that the GM is simply calculating 2 extra plies at all
instances so if I discard that then yes, you are correct in saying that they are
calculating the same. Understanding has a LOT to do with it. Learning to
conceptualize chess even more so. In fact, conceptualizing chess is a form of
calculating, though a different one, so in this case the GMs ARE calculating
further. 500 points, which is what my initial statement said, in which the ONLY
difference is one of understanding?
Albert Silver
>
>Please read some older JICCA's as well.
>to get JICCA: herik@cs.unimaas.nl and herik@cs.rulimburg.nl
>
>One of those email adresses is valid i forgot which one.
>
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.