Author: John Warfield
Date: 13:50:07 12/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 1999 at 06:32:32, Graham Laight wrote: >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, I doubt if he can beat his own program more than 1 out of 20 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 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.