Author: stuart taylor
Date: 02:00:24 01/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2000 at 22:43:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. :) Obviously I'm speaking about ssdf and selective search types of rating. I didn't realize they were THAT far behind other correct testings. And on the likes of k6-2 450mhz. S.Taylor
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.