Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 18:45:24 01/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2001 at 10:36:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 13, 2001 at 04:40:36, Garry Evans 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. >> >> 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 > > >Easy. If you look at the last 3 games they don't look like "anti-computer" >at all. They look like wide-open games against another human. Game 6 was >a classic example. But isn't that the point? Maybe it isn't quite so easy to play effective anti-computer chess against the current top programs... I mean, if an acknowledged anti computer expert like Van der Weil finds it difficult then I'm betting most other GMs would find it difficult too. > >And he didn't get slaughtered. The final was 3.5-2.5 unless I missed a game. >That is very close.
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.