Author: Albert Silver
Date: 08:26:48 04/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2001 at 10:15:16, Uri Blass wrote:
>On April 30, 2001 at 10:01:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On April 30, 2001 at 07:22:24, Alvaro Polo wrote:
>>
>>>Hello all,
>>>
>>>In a recent interview Kramnik states that "We are in a very interesting phase,
>>>when the strength of the best GMs and that of the best chess engines run by the
>>>best processors are about equal."
>>>
>>>I know that this point (machines being GM strenght or nor) has been debated
>>>again and again and I don't intend to post a troll. I would just like to know if
>>>the consensus now among chess programmers is wether Kramnik is right or not. For
>>>instance, I remember Bob Hyatt saying that computers are really 2450, etc. But
>>>software evolves, CPU power evolves and perhaps now there is agreement that
>>>machines are finally GM strenght?
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>Alvaro Polo
>>
>>
>>I personally think my estimate is still pretty close. Computers have two
>>serious problems:
>>
>>1. opening books. They depend on a human to "play the game" of choosing good
>>and bad openings. This leaves them highly vulnerable to opening preparation and
>>traps. Particularly when you practice against one copy and then play another
>>copy which doesn't have the 'learning' from the practice games.
>
>I think it is unfair to use this way to decide about the level of chess
>programs.
>
>I am more interested to know the results of programs when the opponent cannot
>get a copy of the program.
>
>When Deep thought and Deep blue played against humans the opponents could not
>get a copy of the program so I see no reason to let them to get a copy of the
>programs before the game.
>
>I think that letting the opponent to get a copy before the match should be
>allowed only after programs can prove that they can beat the best humans without
>giving them a copy before the match.
>
>Uri
Here's a little story:
Somewhere around 1988/1989 in Paris, the large department store chain FNAC
organized some kind of chess challenge in order to draw publicity for their
section selling chess playing machines (all stand-alones). The challenge went
like this: 8 players would qualify for a knockout event of 20 minute games, the
top 3 of who would win some prizes. To earn a spot, you had to beat the
Constellation Forte B (rated around 2000 Elo - in France - in 40/2h) in a 5
minute blitz game! No doubt to guarantee players of at least master strength.
The trick was that you could play against the machine all you wanted, but had to
call over the attendant of the department to watch your qualifying attempt. You
could only try once, and if more than 8 succeeded, the shortest wins would be
awarded the spots. You must understand I was rated 1580 Elo at the time. I spent
the whole afternoon there, noticing how it treated a few openings, and finally
was confident of my ability to score a win at will. I qualified by mating the
machine on the 20th move in its ill-fated Najdorf (0-0-0, g4 and h4 and kill the
comp!). Naturally, I also lost to my 2280 Fide rated opponent in the first
round.
I understand that this was a long time ago, and that programs and hardware have
gone a LONG way, however the fact of it remains that the program's opponent
isn't rated a measly 1580, he is rated a good 1200 points more and is the
current World Champion. He won't be preparing for a single afternoon, but rather
3 full months. No disrespect meant to Amir or Frans, but you can imagine what my
prognostic is. The only positive thing is that it may serve to recover mankind's
pride after the DB-Kasparov fiasco; though I think the general media (and
people) will simply conclude that PCs have a long way to go before reaching DB's
heels.
Albert
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.