Author: blass uri
Date: 00:04:48 12/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 1999 at 22:48:32, Albert Silver wrote: >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. You can know only if you try. I know about cases when a player below 2100 won 2500 player and I think that the probability is the same. In one case the under 2100 player won after less than 2 hours. I asked him how did he do it and he told me that everything was opening preperation and the opponent falled into a trap. In the second case the GM simply did not play well. I do not believe that it is impossible for you to win 2700 if you play enough games. The 2700 player may do a tactical blunder. It does not happen often but it can happen. I know that even world champions including kasparov did tactical mistakes. Uri
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.