Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:01:33 01/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2000 at 03:24:41, Amir Ban wrote: >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. :) > >Junior had a TPR of around 2500 in each of the years 1996-1998, on hardware that >was mostly P5/133. In these years its real rating advanced from around 2200 to >2410. Junior was saddled in 1993 with a 1900 initial rating, and its rating is >unrealistically low because of that. Had it been introduced in 1996 with an >initial 2400, it would be around 2500 today. > >Amir THat wouldn't be a great surprise.. but I would be surprised if today's junior dropped in at 2600, even though it probably beats 1996's junior quite badly...
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.