Author: John Warfield
Date: 13:58:01 12/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 1999 at 07:08:38, Albert Silver wrote: >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, 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 do, and I have. I have a lot of programs and there isn't one I haven't beat in >a slower time-control. Anti-computer chess is alive and well though using it >wasn't even always necessary. This would NEVER work against a GM, and against a >2700 player I would have quite simply NO chance. EVER. And as you say, chess is >chess, so using anti-computer chess is by all means an acceptable solution. You >want a deadly opening with White? Try the Ruy Lopez Exchange variation. In the >hands of an expert, computers program are in very big trouble. That's just an >example. > >> >>>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? > >Yes. > >> >>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. > >Highly debatable. The reason DB didn't convince GMs of being superior, is >because it was inferior in most games. For whatever reasons Kasparov was not >able to convert these positions, but the inferior positions were due to inferior >positional play. > >> >>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? > >Aspects? Positional play, strategic play, endgame play. Mind you, I think Tiger >plays great, but that is what differentiates it from a GM. > > Albert Silver > >> >>-g Mr Silver If I am not mistaken I read your rating is 2294, ofcourse you are going to beat a top program at 40/2 from time to time as you are expected to. You would also beat a 2700 player a percentage of points, so what's your point?
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.