Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:51:52 04/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2001 at 15:49:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? It has weaknesses but getting to positions that you can take advantage of the weaknesses is not simple. 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.