Author: Graham Laight
Date: 03:32:32 12/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1999 at 21:48:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 22, 1999 at 19:03:34, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On December 22, 1999 at 15:07:42, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>>At the end of the day, good chess is good chess. A machine that can beat more >>>>computers is also likely to beat more humans. >>>> >>> >>>That's really the core of the issue, and I don't agree with it. I used to, but >>>as I grew stronger in chess, I changed my mind. It isn't because I am way up >>>there, but because I can better appreciate the difference between myself and an >>>IM for example. The point is 80-90% of computer chess is dependent on tactics, >> >>As computers continiue to get stronger, strong chess players are going to have >>to accept that there's more than one way to play good chess. Daniel King >>suggested this in his book about the GK/DB 1997 rematch in New York. >> >>>and let's say up to a strength of 2100-2200, this is also very true for human >>>players, but then a new important factor comes in and the balance swings >>>completely. Most IMs and GMs rely on their positional play, and this weighs in >>>more and more as a rule the stronger they get. This is not the case of computer >>>programs. Not by a long shot. And since no program is sufficiently strong >>>positionally to properly compensate inferior tactics with superior positional >>>play, the tactical wizards consistently top the lists. >> >>This doesn't quite seem to add up to me. More and more frequently, we are >>reading about GMs succumbing to computers at tournament time controls. DB v GK >>was a good example. In the last Aegon tournament (1997), the computers beat the >>humans overall. If the limit of tactical strength has been reached by computers, >>and if computers do not have mastery of positional factors, then what's going >>on? >> >>I'm still not happy that I agree with yours and Bob's assertion that SSDF rate >>the computers too highly. It's true that there is a tendency for new programs to >>come in with very high Elo ratings, and then shrink back with the passage of >>time, but these guys are very experienced at what they're doing. They admit that >>there's a margin of error, but, over a long period of time, haven't they been >>around about the right order of magnitude with their ratings? >> >>If you don't believe that Tiger is significantly over 2600 Fide, then in the >>recent past, something has gone very wrong in the SSDF team. > >The problem is well-documented. if one pool has nothing but monkeys, and >the other nothing but chess geniuses, you will still have 1200 humans >and monkeys, and you will have 2800 humans and monkeys. And the ratings >won't have a thing to do with each other. Because there is no cross- >pollenation of the rating pools. In the case of the SSDF computer pool, much of it has been there for a long time, and is known to be broadly correct. And in the past, the evidence has supported SSDF - there just hasn't been much in the way of evidence in the last couple of years. If you regard your "human" rating to be about 2200, can you beat programs (other than your own, which you know too well) of a higher rating? If you believe that the computer ratings are about 200 Elo too high, you ought to be able to. >I have watched Tiger play. It _absolutely_ is not a 2700 FIDE player. Nor >is any other program IMHO. But can a GM guarantee to know what good chess looks like? A lot of GMs strongly criticised much of DB's play against GK - often using phrases like "that move was truly ugly", thus implying that to be a good move, a move has to "look attractive" - but in the end DB came away with the points. What is wrong with the way Tiger plays? Can you describe to me the aspects of its play which have convinced you that it is not anywhere close to being a super GM, as its rating would imply? -g
This page took 0.01 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.