Author: Garry Evans
Date: 01:40:36 01/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2001 at 22:56:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 12, 2001 at 21:34:53, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>On January 12, 2001 at 10:02:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2001 at 00:41:33, Garry Evans wrote: >>> >>>> A short while ago, i asked you on ICC, would you acknowledge that computers are >>>>of Grandmaster Strength if Rebel Won the Match against Van der Wiel, your answer >>>>Was yes!! So would you please honour this agreement and acknowledge here in >>>>Public that computers are GM Strength? >>> >>> >>>2-3 years ago my estimate was that the programs were at about 2400-2450 on >>>the FIDE Elo level. I would probably change that to barely 2500 for today's >>>much-faster hardware. I wouldn't begin to suggest they are beyond 2500 >>>yet, however. They _still_ have a lot of weaknesses. >> >>Hi Bob, >>I don't usually participate in this sort of discussion but hey, its a slow >>progamming day :-) >>Personally I'd bump that 2500 up to around 2550, which I guess is 'GM strength' >>whatever that means exactly. >> >>I think its easy to over estimate the strength of humans, because they are >>capable of playing very profound chess. However the practicalities of playing >>chess free of tactical mistakes are definitely non trivial, even for GMs. >>Relentless tactical pressure definitely works against GMs, a fact clearly >>exploited by players such as Kortchnoi and Fischer. >> >>Also, we now have comps that are more than capable of exploiting small >>positional advantages and grinding out points that way. >> >>I hear that GMs will 'learn to exploit computers', as if chess computers were >>just invented yesterday. Of course they will score the occasional impressive >>anti-computer victory, but I think these are becoming increasingly more >>difficult to pull off. Perhaps the trend is more a case of the programmers >>learning to exploit the GMs? >> >>cheers, >>Peter > > >I don't think we will really see how "bad" computers can be until we see >the day when computers play in human events with regularity. IE until a GM >is _forced_ to address the issue of computers, he isn't going to do so. > >A good curve-ball pitcher is simply bound and determined to throw his curve, >until he finally realizes that there are a few batters that are going to >knock him off the mound. Then he begins to learn which batters like the >curveball and he throws them sliders or fastballs or changeups or whatever. >But until _he_ (he being the pitcher) finally accepts the fact that he simply >can't throw a curve past some batters, he is going to keep trying. And keep >watching as his pitches get knocked into the parking lot. > >But sooner or later, he will begin to "throw to the batter" and not "to the >catcher" and then he becomes a _real_ pitcher. And those batters that can >_only_ hit curve balls begin to have real problems since it is very difficult >for them to adapt to sliders or whatever... > >the human GM players haven't gotten to that point yet, although if you watch >on ICC, you see a few "new breed" GM players. I watched Mecking rip a well- >known program several games (and about 100 Elo points) to pieces the other >night. Because he played the right kind of positions. I have watched GM >players play Crafty 10 games in a row, finally quitting when they get a draw >on the 10th game. Against the computer they are beginning to play very >deliberately toward drawish positions because that raises their ratings (since >the comps on ICC are usually rated above them). Humans will eventually respond >when the challenge is recognized. Right now computers are a novelty in the >GM tournaments. I doubt computers will become very commonplace there, which >means they will continue to do pretty well vs the humans. Until they invade >the human's territory enough that the humans decide to take action. I don't understand your argument, are you forgetting that van der wiel is about the best anti-computer player there is, having played hundreds of games vs computers, and never publically lost, he even had the program to train against before the match, and he got slaughtered 4-2
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.