Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:50:55 03/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2001 at 09:53:07, Jorge Pichard wrote:
Well first of all, today programs all search way deeper as deep blue,
so i don't see the deep blue issue, but regarding the subject
question:
the problem is picking the move from a combination of programs.
If we call the picking the move person or entity or program a 'hirn'
(from 3-hirn, which means translated from german to US 'brain') then
the hirn is the weakest link.
Suppose the hirn is 2200 rated in selecting moves, not to confuse with the
hirns own rating.
Supposing that the programs play 2600 fide rated, then obviously there
is a major problem as 2200 < 2600. So the level will be UNDER the level
of the programs.
In general most hirns will give weaker play, especially if you replace the
hirn by a simple program with a few rules.
Suppose we have 2 programs from equal strength, but different
programs.
And suppose the rule inside the hirn is next:
'play the move of the program with the highest score'
MOST LIKELY THAT WILL PLAY NOT BETTER!
>Since Deep Blue had a tremendous calculating power, I was wondering if a
>combination of the best current programs available such as: Deep Fritz, Deep
>Shredder, Deep Junior and Gambit Tiger II with all the Deeps using a minimum of
>a PIII 2X 1,0 GHz and and G-Tiger II using a minimum of a P III 1,2 GHz could
>have a better chance to beat Kramnik than using a single program. Of course
Now let's pick things from a different spot: "can we beat anyhow kramnik".
Whatever combination you're not going to beat kramnik anyway, unless
he's playing the match in the same kind of suicide-chess way as kasparov
did against Deep Blue. Without commenting too loud on Deep Blue, as we
must compare with 1997 programs and not with the high level standard
of today, it's obvious that the big guilty person in this match was
Kasparov. He CAN be blamed for losing the match by pathetic moves.
But what is best way to show based upon what happened so far in
computer-human why kramnik would be an ideal player to face computers?
Best is probably to look at the 2 matches from 1997 and 2001, where
kasparov played deep blue and where v/d wiel played rebel. The only
slow level matches from the last 5 years actually...
If kasparov would have shown the same kind of games like v/d wiel recently
showed against rebel, then things would have been different.
v/d wiel had 3 disadvantages against the computer which kasparov nor kramnik
never will have and never had:
a) v/d wiel was badly out of shape the weeks before the match he
had lost from dozens of 2200 players. his rating also dropped
a lot.
b) the tactical weakness. When kasparov has a big dip he'll lose perhaps
from Van Wely (2700) a game, but not based upon tactics.
However if v/d Wiel is badly out of shape tactically spoken,
then he blunders away piece after piece. Of course not the first 20
moves. The big suffering for the human player always happens after
some time has passed, like 3.5 hours and more...
c) v/d wiel actually will have problems playing his default openings
against the computer. His default opening is caro-kann with black.
Now i'm also a caro-kann player and i can assure everyone that with
caro-kann i lose in blitz nearly everything against the computer.
On the other hand with French, which i never play in my life, i have
a very good score against the computer with black. Even in blitz i
sometimes manage to win it, which is quite incredible as i am not aware
of any standard tricks in french. Kasparov on the other hand has
a splendig openings repertoire to play against the computer. I mean
najdorf is completely deadly for the computer. It will be lost bigtime
long before it realizes it and it most likely won't sacrafice material
for complicated positions which is nearly always needed to win
najdorf in an objective way for white. If white never sacrafices in
a najdorf game, then usually black is either a complete beginner or
black was the one who sacraficed himself to mate white...
There are just a few factors to consider where v/d wiel has the edge over
kasparov, but in no means this is a big plus for v/d wiel
a) not paranoia/crazy. v/d wiel is in no way crazy or paranoia, whereas
kasparov definitely is. His stupid accusations against the Deep Blue
team are already enough proof of this. Later he didn't even correct
this. As a world champ it is NOT very polite to accuse the opponent
from something just to DISTRACT the audience from what a bad games he
showed. The games are really around 2400 level at most, from tactical
viewpoint. From strategical viewpoint kasparov played like 1900 at most.
Now 99.99% of the world population for sure doesn't have 1900 so won't
notice that...
b) kasparov won the first game. Actually kasparov after the match said:
"i shouldn't have won the first game that easy". This is very true,
when talking about the PERSON kasparov.
Deep Blue does about everything wrong with pawn structure what one
can do wrong, even 1997 programs understood that with perhaps exception
of the blunder g7-g5 which most progs still play. In fact by playing
so deadly passive (just 3 rows) any 2600 player would have completely
humiliated kasparov if the 2600 player would have had black. If deep
blue would have been a box with a 2600 GM inside who doesn't fear
tactics, then kasparov would have lost that first game for sure.
Speculations are always dubious to do, but very sure kasparov offered
deep blue the first point for free. Perhaps in an attempt to attract
more spectators?
So kasparov simply played a bit suicidal in order to get more audience
seemingly. Resigning in a drawn position is only confirming this. In
real matches you play till the last pawn. So then you play qe3 and
you either find Re8 then and draw the game, or you don't find Re8
and you lose the game. Kasparov already resigned long before that
stage... ...definitely v/d wiel is not so stupid. He is a lot smarter
as kasparov. Basically because of his low rating (low for GM):
list april 2000: Wiel J.T.H. v/d M 2551 17*
list september 2000: Wiel J.T.H. v/d M 2483 47*
Someone from 2483 (dropped 70 points within 47 games)
risks of course to not get invited anymore if he loses by a big margin.
Kasparov doesn't care. He has 28xx anyway so he cares shit in
this respect.
c) Now playing 3 rows hoping your opponent to rape its own pawn
structure is a very well known way to attack a computer, most likely
kasparov didn't know this as he didn't try any other trick which was
shown in Aegon tournaments, but in aegon tournament it was very common
for white players to open with a near to 3 row system: d4 c3 e3 and then
wait till computer kills itself and then strike. V/d Wiel clearly
based his games against Rebel upon experience from the Aegon tournaments,
whereas Kasparov obviously played without caring what to play against
the computer. Even worse, kasparov played only systems from Karpov
versus it.
d) All those systems share that they just shuffle with pieces. Now even
Seirawan in ICCA journal june 1997 says several times: "perhaps kasparov
is not used to this kind of play and therefore plays this horrible
strategic mistake". Tactical blunders are of course usually decisive in
games. Above 2400 we talk usually about a level where those horrible
moves don't get played. A few bad moves usually don't hurt a game too
much, but a move that's taking the wrong strategical decision is
completely going to lose games for you!
V/d Wiel didn't make any obvious strategical mistake against Rebel in
the first few games.
Kasparov made plenty against Deep Blue. Kasparov made actually only
1 game several tactical mistakes and that was in game 6.
e) Kasparov technique is kind of bad when looking at his 28xx rating.
Most 2500+ gm's are technical better in endgames as Kasparov. Without
claiming a world title yet myself, i'm pretty sure that if i would make
after many hours of play a bit less tactical blunders (sometimes i
make one), then i would probably be a big problem for kasparov in
technical endgames. Now v/d Wiel has dropped in rating, but i'm pretty
sure he's technical better as kasparov. However, also v/d Wiel suffers
from the same tactical blackouts as i do.
Playing for many hours without blundering away material is something
which not too many people on this planet can do. for > 2200 players
they CAN play a game without blunders. Above 2600 sure tactics is
not the problem. Actually one of the greatest tacticians in the world
is a female! She's called Judith Polgar!
In short we have a few DISADVANTAGES of v/d Wiel which Kasparov doesn't
have nor Kramnik has. We have a few ADVANTAGES of v/d Wiel which kasparov
doesn't have, most of them psychological.
If i find kasparov so bad to face a computer, what made kasparov for
so long the #1 of the world and what are still his strong points that
let his rating raise and raise?
Ok this is easy:
a) if you come to the board to kasparov, you feel the eyes of kasparov
in your body as if you play against someone who thinks you are a
complete beginner. Fearing complete humiliation you sit down and
already lose
the game psychological against kasparov. Kasparov even very intimidating
always puts down the his wristwatch besides the board, to measure what
time it takes to humiliate you.
b) openings preparation. the first 15 moves or so Kasparov plays very quick.
Now and then he takes half a minute to remember an openings line. Very
soon after you leave your home preparation you discover after some
investment in time that you have a lost position here. Actually you
are the second one to discover that, as kasparov during all that
time investment already obviously knew you were lost as he was smiling
like a happy collie-dog.
c) killerinstinct. At the moment you feared that a certain move would
cause you much troubles, either objective or subjective, then kasparov
already plays that move. Sometimes within a second... ...everyone remembers
kasparov quick knock-out of karpov in the famous live television broadcast.
This is how kasparov always strikes. quick, mercilous and like a fanatic.
d) no perpetuals. As soon as kasparov thinks he has a won position he
puts back on his watch to his wrist. Now that's a clear sign for beginners
of around 2600 who play him to resign AT THAT MOMENT.
None of the above advantages were used against deep blue!
Even if kramnik doesn't show his openings preparation he'll kick the hell
out of the computer as
a) Kramnik is technical number 1 of the world, great chess heroes like
Capablanca were best in their days but would get beaten
simultaneously blindfolded in endgames when facing Kramnik.
b) Kramnik is by a large margin the best ever in positional shuffling,
even complete useless demonstration games he wins by a few shuffle
moves. Very well i remember a 1 hour a game exhibition on german
broadcast versus Judith Polgar. 1.Nf3 a few shuffle moves and it was
'game over'.
c) Kramnik is strategical best in world by a large margin
d) Kramnik is very good in tactics. Note that many 'shufflers' are
tactical not bad at all. This applies to Karpov too.
So in short at 40 in 2 level Kramnik is the ultimate nightmare against
computers.
At blitz i don't know whether the advantages of kramnik are going to
work for him. In blitz general shuffling works against you. Especially
the tactical details of shuffling need to get calculated very accurate
as without detailed tactical planning having little space means you
get beaten quickly by a few combinations! Even if you see the combinations
nothing is going to stop you from losing then!
But we already know that humans play worse in blitz as they play at 40 in 2,
so it would be cool to see a 40 in 2 match, but a 40 in 2 match
against kramnik objectively seen is completely suicide for the computer,
*whatever* computer now or in the future, with exception of course of a
10^40 database.
The only one that can beat kramnik in a match against a computer is
the same person as who beated kasparov. And that was the person himself.
Only kramnik can beat kramnik.
If he thinks he is just playing a few suicide-chess games for money,
without realizing he needs to play a few GOOD games, then he might lose
if he blunders away pieces.
My own expectation would be that kramnik plays on safe. He's going to win
the match. After he has nearly won the match or has enough points to win
the match he might not want to humiliate his opponent to much (that's like
humiliating a big sponsor, basically also a factor where kasparov
had to deal with) otherwise he'll lose the pretty income for next year
perhaps...
>there would have to be a human monitoring the most selected move to be the
>chosen move against Kramnik. By the end of the GTiger II vs Web, we should have
>a good idea on much advantage if there is any of using several programs versus
>using a single program. Please take a look at this interesting position
>where the Web with black pieces take the initiative of the attack.
The average rating on the world is 1500, so a web game versus a program
is going to play 1500 rated moves theoretically spoken. Especially
if you play based upon 'voting'.
That's in no way a compare for
kramnik versus a program. The > 1500 player always wins of course
a web game, in this case tiger.
The only exception being here that if a real strong player gives
advice on which move to play, then the level of the game gets near to
the level of the strong player. Of course many <1500 players still will
vote for a bad move. So sometimes a horrible moves is getting made despite
perhaps superb advice, see kasparov versus world when a strong playing girl
was simply not allowed to post here advice on the website, which at the same
day caused the 'world' to play a completely idiotic blunder. Not even
close to common sense even of an average national player...
>http://www.rebel.nl/gt2-web.htm
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.