Author: Albert Silver
Date: 13:21:19 12/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 1999 at 10:19:03, Charles Unruh wrote:
>On December 24, 1999 at 06:43:47, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On December 24, 1999 at 03:04:48, blass uri wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>Well, I agree it is possible, I just don't really see it happening. The
>>difference between a 2700 player and a 2500 player is usually considerably more
>>than the mere 200 points. I know of many 2500 players who still play at that
>>strength, but who are semi-retired, and play very infrequently, so they are
>>prone to errors due to these circumstances, but 2700? 2700 players are not only
>>very big talents, but also, very active, and usually very hard working. I tend
>>to see them as being more than merely 200 points stronger. In any case, it has
>>never taken me more than 5 games to score a victory against a computer (actually
>>I think Hiarcs was up 4.5-1.5 before I managed to beat it), and I don't imagine
>>I'd be quite that successful against Ivanchuk or Shirov for example. I am just
>>pointing this out as a means of comparison and not out of hubris. Computer
>>programs (barring one) are quite far from the 2700 FIDE mark IMO.
>>
>> Albert Silver
>
>
>Comps are not close to 2700, but certainly over 2500. If you got to play
>Ivanchuk a hundred games in a short period of time and learned how he played
>you'd start getting draws every now and then.
I'm not sure that any information I gleaned on his playing style would be of
much help to me. I think the best chance I might have would be to tell him that
very big threatening-looking guy in the back with the shades is my close friend
and takes my losses personally. :-)
> As far as any 2500 player goes
>you play any of them 50 or 60 games and learn their play as a master you'd start
>gettin a draw or a win every now and again.
Sure. Against a 2500 player I'd probably be a little more optimistic. But be
careful with the title "master". There are masters and there are masters. I know
that in the US, a player is considered a master after reaching a rating of 2200,
and there is a gamut of different master titles. I am not saying this to
belittle them, but because I personally don't see it that way. In Russia, at
2200 you are considered a candidate master. That makes more sense to me, and
corresponds to how I see myself. I think I am still a ways from being a master
at chess.
> You know comps styles much better
Each computer has its style and that's the fun of it. If they all played the
same, what would be the point in purchasing more than one? That's also why I
don't play dozens of blitz games against them before matching up against them. I
want to be surprised.
Albert Silver
>than you know any GM style you don't have the same oppertunity to play them.
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.