Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:38:43 01/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2001 at 00:09:54, Peter McKenzie wrote: >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. > >Computers may be a novelty in GM tournaments, but they are not a novelty to GMs. > I think many if not most active GMs (in particular those that make a living >from playing chess) would be using Fritz or some other program for checking >analysis at the very least. Kasparov has stated publically that he does this >for example. Probably some GMs are using computers to play training games too. > >I would think that having your own personal copy of a program would be about the >most helpful thing possible for a GM preparing to play that program. Maybe. But in talking to several, they _still_ think that in a serious game, they can play their normal openings and slug it out. Some do this on ICC and simply lose 30 games in a row. And then win 1. And they say "I knew I didn't have to change my style of play, I can beat this thing with a normal opening." And then they promptly lose another 30 in a row (blitz of course).
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.