Author: Josh Strayhorn
Date: 21:04:01 01/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2001 at 23:00:54, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 13, 2001 at 17:13:56, Mike S. wrote: > >>The problem with this comparison is, that comps have a much different and much >>more imbalanced profile than the average human master IMO. >> >>The games within this posting illustrate that (see at the end): >> >>http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/7051.htm >> >>Some top programs on P600, still falling victim to the trojan sacrifice. As long >>as this happens, I think we cannot talk of real IM strength. > >I don't think that single set of examples disprove it. IM's can make blunders >too, especially at fast time control games. If you can demonstrate that >statistically some program definitely has a weakness that can be explioted then >we could say that the computer programs with that defect probably are not IM >strength either. That is because the weakness might be expoitable over and over >again. Even that would need to be demonstrated. But a few examples won't prove >that point. I suspect every GM has made more than one blunder in his/her >career. > >I also think that only games at tournament time controls should count in the >discussions. Typically, the trojan horse attacks are made at blitz time >controls. If you give the computers 40/2 time control, they are far less likely >to get sucked into such a thing. I think it's been proven beyond doubt that computers are quite capable of crushing a grandmaster under certain conditions. At the sime time, though, it's also pretty clear that ordinary masters, and even some much weaker players, can learn some simple techniques that allow them to turn the tables and solidly defeat the machines. That's what makes this difficult. I recall about a year or so ago I stumbled on a page describing how to play anti-computer chess. This particular one was describing the stonewall setup, which I'm sure most here are familiar with. I read the document, played a couple of practice games to get the idea, and then enjoyed an afternoon of destroying the few free programs I had at the time until I got tired of it and went back to 1. e4. Now, I'm a fairly strong player, but even so, I don't think there's any book or web page that will teach me, in less than 15 minutes, how to beat a human grandmaster with regularity. My opinion is that we can't really call computers grandmasters, or 'GM strength,' until they are considerably less susceptible to tricks like this. 'GM strength' isn't a Platonic form, it's a measure of performance. The machines still have too many holes.
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.