Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:43:01 01/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2000 at 20:10:06, stuart taylor wrote: >On January 08, 2000 at 16:57:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 08, 2000 at 12:02:19, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>On January 08, 2000 at 09:56:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>Computers do _some_ tactics great. But I have seen GM players take them to the >>>>woodshed on tactics as well, as at times, the computer simply doesn't/can't go >>>>deep enough to see the _real_ answer, and the 'phantom answer' it sees can be >>>>wrong. >>>> >>>>But the problem is that the positional holes are significant enough that it is >>>>possible to exploit them without much risk, because many programs don't struggle >>>>to keep the game position in a state that favors the computer. While the GMs >>>>can definitely steer the game into positions that do not favor the machine, if >>>>it passively allows this to happen. >>>> >>>>Again, this comes from watching on ICC. If you'd like to see how bad your >>>>favorite program can play there, try this: log on, and accept _every_ match >>>>request from humans rated (say) 2500 and up. Even if they want to play 50 games >>>>in a row. And watch what happens after a while when they find a weakness they >>>>can pick on repeatedly. The weakness can be anything, from a feature that is >>>>not evaluated, to a book hole. And the humans _talk_. So when one finds a >>>>weakness, you can expect it to be hit on by several players... >>>> >>>>And you are correct that 2700 players will occasionally make a mistake that >>>>a computer wouldn't... but on balance, the computer has a lot more holes in >>>>its armor than that 2700 player. And when you move the time control up to >>>>40/2hrs, the tactical errors by the GMs go way down, while the positional >>>>errors by the computer are unchanged... >>> >>>This is good, convincing argument, but the computers are probably getting close >>>to being able to fight back. >>> >>>Firstly, look at DB v GK. Granted, GK didn't have enough time to discover all >>>the weaknesses, and the program was probably changed between games, but look at >>>the way the program survived in positions when all the GMs would have bet their >>>houses on it being beaten! >>> >>>And secondly, ongoing improvements in search selection and evaluation (+ faster >>>computers with more processors) will, in some marginal positions, result in >>>computers choosing a move from which it can survive, rather than one from which >>>it must die. How soon this happens depends on how close to being GMs the >>>computers are (if they're not already). >>> >>>-g >> >> >>I would never argue with any of the above. Faster hardware helps. It doesn't >>make a program invincible, but it _always_ helps. The question is, when will >>the hardware be fast enough to break the 2500 barrier? And then the 2600 >>barrier? It will happen. But maybe not real soon... > > >I would like to know what Robert Hyatt means by 2500 barrier. Surely the >results of top software is already well over that stage? Maybe the >knowledge level isn't. But there are other strengths which assure that >computers of today are always well over 2500 if not 2600. >Thank you! >S.Taylor What evidence are you talking about? The Rebel challenge match has Rebel well under 2500 at present.. 2466 or so last time I saw Enrique's numbers. 2466 is not "well over 2500" in my math book. :)
This page took 0.01 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.