Author: Albert Silver
Date: 19:48:32 12/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 1999 at 16:58:01, John Warfield wrote:
>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?
I disagree. Perhaps if I inflated my ego some, I might believe that, but I can't
imagine how a 2700 player could lose to me short of falling for some opening
trap. When was the last time a 2700 player _lost_ to a player below 2300?
Albert Silver
BTW, my rating is only 2220.
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.