Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:53:48 01/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2001 at 04:18:56, Ed Schröder wrote: >On January 13, 2001 at 22:24:12, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 13, 2001 at 21:45:24, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I can add that game 6 is not a classic example of playing against another human. >> >>Van der wiel tried king attack. >> >>Trying to win by king attack is one of the anti computer strategies. >> >>The games on ICC are not 2 hours/40 moves and I guess that GM's can win more >>games by king attack at 2 hours/40 moves. >> >>In the last game Van der Wiel got a winning position and the problem was that >>Van der Wiel did not see tactics that I believe that most GM's can see at 2 >>hours/40 moves. >> >>Uri > >A few comments to this discussion... > >#1. The capability of winning a won position is part of a players elo, human >or computer. I agree and the point is that I expect most GM's to play better in the relevant position. > >#2. To win a game at least one player must make one mistake. > >#3. In almost all of the 6 games v/d Wiel had massive troubles to finish his >40 moves in the available 2 hours, the computer of course not. It shows that Van der Wiel did not use the time in an intelligent way. I believe that other players who use their time in a more intelligent way may be better opponents for the computer. I believe that computers are at GM strength but I believe that there are GM's who are better than Van der Wiel in playing against computers. The time problems of Van der Wiel also suggest that Van der Wiel could do better at Fisher time control(60 minutes per game+1.5 minute per move for the first 40 moves) because this time control may help him to use time in a more rational way. Uri
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.