Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 01:46:52 05/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2001 at 11:06:33, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On April 30, 2001 at 10:56:20, Ed Schröder 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.
>>>
>>>2. blocked positions and slow build-ups in kingside attacks. Hardly anyone
>>>has made progress in fighting either of these problems. And they _still_ offer
>>>good chances for a GM that is willing to employ them.
>>
>>Problem is the results speak against your opinion. I don't think the current
>>top programs aren't without chance against Kramnik.
>>
>>Ed
>
>
>Depends on how you define "results". Humans that use a real anti-computer
>type of preparation are doing quite well. Humans that play normal chess are
>getting rolled into small wads.
Kramnik being an exception everywhere at 40 in 2 level.
Kramnik is
a) tactical stronger as the computer (though this is irrelevant at 2700
level and kasparov can be seen as an even better tactician)
b) positional better
c) strategical better
d) openingsrepertoire is a nightmare for the computer (with exception
of the berlin wall)
Kasparov is not like very strong in opening setups which he normally
doesn't play.
This is for example mentionned in analysis and statements by
grandmasters like: Seirawan, John v/d Wiel and many more, among which also
big Kasparov fans.
Kramnik is the opposite of kasparov. He is *everywhere* good, but
can't be called the a genius in the opening, from game theoretic
viewpoint. Matches like against Kasparov
he hires many secondants which take care for that job of him, but in
a match versus the computer he probably will not even consult a
computer expert (PROGRAMMER!!!!) not to mention that he will hardly give
a thing for openings. If he will present to the press a 'computer
expert' most likely it will be a GM who played a few games versus
the computer, but nowhere has any ideas on how tic-tac-toe even
would be coded.
I can't remember Kasparov ever had a coder in his team for example,
or someone who knows how to code a program!
Just 1.Nf3 and positional build up like Kramnik always does is an absolute
nightmare for the computer, so Kramnik in contradiction to Kasparov
doesn't need any preparement when talking about the slow and positional
lines.
Note we never saw a normal game from Kasparov versus the computer. Only
blocked positions of a type of game where Kasparov must first prove
himself to be better as IM level, as he never did this. Kramnik however
daily plays the kind of blocked positions where computers have no clue.
So kramnik's normal style is enough to beat it. Hence playing normal
means he'll win, with or without preparement.
Giving him 3 months ahead the program probably means that overnight when
he has some spare time he will play a few games against it.
He will of course not check and no kasparovchess member will find out
if you play with a new version versus Kramnik. Besides if run SMP then
all programs get theoretical non-deterministic so there is no way to
proof that you play with a new version anyway.
So it's impossible to 100% check things. No one can ever proof that
the version which plays Kramnik is the same engine as where he practiced
against.
Hence the 3 months discussion is useless here. In reality better
conditions will be presented for the computer as on paper they are.
But the chance that the computer wins when it's either fritz or junior
must be seen as absolute 0%. This doesn't mean it won't score draws.
Draws are a known method to win a match if you're ahead, also draws
are a known method to get back from some losses!
Winning a match over 12 games is going to give a very clear winner
who wins with 100% sureness and *not* because he has a version of the
program 3 months before game start.
Kramnik's normal way of setting up a position, even if it's an open position,
is enough to win. That's the bottomline.
Kasparov has falsely given the impression that super-GMs can't face
programs in open positions at 40 in 2 level. He only reason why he
didn't do so remains a mystery.
Best Regards,
Vincent
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.