Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:51:54 04/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2001 at 15:51:52, Uri Blass wrote: >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 For a GM they are easier than you might think. I once played some practice games with a famous Australian tennis player from 30 years ago. you would be _amazed_ at what he could find out about anybody and how he would use that ruthlessly in games, practice or not. :)
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.