Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:49:25 04/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2001 at 13:58:20, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 30, 2001 at 11:10:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. >> >>Then don't give them a copy. But what happens in a 24+ game match? The >>computer does well at the beginning, but by the end has horrendous problems >>as the human discovers its weaknesses. >> >>you only have to watch on ICC to see this happen against _all_ programs, by >>top IM and GM players... >> >> >> >>> >>>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. >> >>You don't need a copy of the program to bust it. You only need to prepare >>openings that against _other_ programs produce advantages. Some traps are >>quite easy to spring when you know your opponent is a computer and will likely >>take any pawn that is offered. > >It is not so simple > >Junior sacrificed material in the games against Fritz and it is not going to >take any pawn that is offered if it plays against kramnik. > >Uri So you don't think it has any discernable weaknesses? I'm not a GM but I can look at 10 games and find a major one. I do it to my program _all_ the time. Of course, I'm not bedazzled by all the hype that impresses many others.
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.