Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 15:20:19 03/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2001 at 11:50:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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... > I noticed that humans players who has been participating are less than 10% in which about 90 % of the participants so far has been People using one and more of the top programs from the SSDF, with the exception of an entry program Mint, which is probably rated in the low expert or close to master. I dont really know the rating of most of the humans participants since they are not required to provide that information, but I can assure you that the majority of the programs participating are the very best 6 such as: 1.Deep Fritz 2.Deep Shredder 3.Fritz 6 4. Junior 6 5. Nimzo8 6.Rebel Century 3. and 7. Gandalf 4.32h. The only program that has not participated yet is Diep Blunder ??! >>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.