Author: Slater Wold
Date: 08:28:46 06/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2001 at 03:25:26, Uri Blass wrote:
>On June 05, 2001 at 01:33:12, Slater Wold wrote:
>
>>On June 05, 2001 at 00:16:18, william penn wrote:
>>
>>>On June 04, 2001 at 23:56:30, Slater Wold wrote:
>>>
>>>>On June 04, 2001 at 23:16:07, Mark Young wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On June 04, 2001 at 22:37:54, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On June 04, 2001 at 11:08:11, Mark Young wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On June 04, 2001 at 10:34:36, Slater Wold wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is the annotated game by Petr. Look like Mark was correct, 10...Bxf3 was
>>>>>>>>the correct move as well as 10...Be6 or 10...Bh5. Shredder was lost, bottom
>>>>>>>>line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I can't be wrong all the time:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I doubt that _one_ move lost the game. It was the _group_ of bad moves that
>>>>>>made it hopeless.. Against a good GM you can't toss a tempi here, a tempi
>>>>>>there, and expect to do anything but get tossed overboard yourself. :)
>>>>
>>>>I agree. Moves 9-14 Shredder sat back and watched a 2500+ player mound an
>>>>attack on it, while it silently sat back and moves pieces back and forth. I've
>>>>played well over 1,000 games with Shredder, and have NEVER seen it play this
>>>>poorly.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course, the computers are all super-GM players, so this discussion really
>>>>>>is _not_ happening. :)
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I believe Peter gave Shredder the super-GM ELO of 2100-2200.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Who said "all" computers are super-GM players. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>The only computers that "could" try and claim that they are Super-GM Players are
>>>>>Deep Blue, and Deep Junior. We will have to wait and see what Fritz 7 can do.
>>>>
>>>>Computers that can claim GM status: Deep Blue.
>>>>
>>>>Programs that can claim GM status: Yet to be answered.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Many programs are GM strength(> 2500 elo), but Super-GM...I don't think so
>>>>>either.
>>>>
>>>>Well, Deep Fritz sits atop the SSDF list right now with something like a 2700+
>>>>rating. And remember, Deep Shredder is the "best", therefore meaning it should
>>>>be at least even with Deep Fritz. A 2500 GM played it, killed it, and then said
>>>>it was a 2100-2200 player. I think a LOT of people are a little too giving when
>>>
>>>
>>> HOW can this grandmaster make this claim based on one game? Sounds to me like
>>>he is one of those group of grandmasters that are threatened by the growing
>>>strength of computers. By the way Gm Dreev after drawing this same deep shredder
>>>says that it would get a highier elo than 2500 if it competes in fide
>>>tournaments. Who's opinion would you take a 2541 grandmaster or a 2650 elo Gm
>>>who has played more than one game, but many games at 40/2, so far he has played
>>>three 40/2 games vs deep shredder. Go to the rebel page and you will hear other
>>>grandmasters say the same thing. I am willing to bet that this grandmaster that
>>>you played, has a certain system he uses regulary to beat computers, so he
>>>basically wins the same type of game more than once. This has nothing to do with
>>>chess strength, for if the computer was conscious it would avoid such lines
>>
>>Well, your last sentence sums it up. "for if the computer was conscious it
>>would avoid such lines" I think that's what determines ELO. The ability to
>>avoid certain lines. :)
>>
>>Dreev played 3 games against Deep Fritz, and beat it 2.5-0.5. He is without a
>>doubt the better player of the two GM's, however, it's not just not possible
>>that a home computer can come close to Super-GM strength. I would guess, do to
>>it's lack of conscious.
>>
>>Also, you are absolutly correct. He played Deep Shredder 1 game. And when I
>>asked him the question directly, I asked, "What would you rate the performance
>>ELO of the computer in this game." He replied, "2100-2200 FIDE" That's what
>>this post is about. Just 1 game. Not a series of them.
>>
>>And yes, Peter does consistatly play D35 and D36 against chess computers. As do
>>a lot of people. It's a newer approcach to beating computers. This was said in
>>an earlier post. However, what does Kramnik consistatly play against Kasparov
>>as black? YES! The Berlin! (Anyone check if Kaspy is still conscious?) And it
>>works, and you stick with what works. I won't hold a grudge cause a GM can kick
>>my 'puter's ass. Even if he plays the same line over and over. If my program
>>is dumb enough to lose everytime, well then that just tells me how much further
>>it REALLY is from Super-GM stregth.
>>
>>In a nutshell: Computers are not Super-GM strength. Especially not on home
>>computers.
>
>I think that it is unfair because humans can play games against the program when
>the program has no idea about the games and later beat the program by the same
>way they beated their home computer.
>
>The only fair matches are matches against programs that are not public like
>Ferret because humans cannot beat Ferret at home and repeat the game on the
>internet against a Ferret clone.
>
>I believe that even 2200 players have good chance to beat Crafty in a match at
>tournament time control if they train seriously at home against the thing.
>
>I guess that the main reason that it is not going to happen is the fact that
>they have no real motivation to do it because they cannot earn money from it.
>
>I guess that if a sponsor suggests 100,000$ for some humans with rating
>2100-2200 for beating Crafty in a match of 10 games(they will get the money
>only if they get at least 5.5-4.5 against Crafty) and if they give them 3
>monthes to prepare for the match then we are going to see Crafty lose at
>tournament time control against humans with rating of 2100-2200.
>
>I guess that it is not going to be possible against private programs.
>
>Uri
Well, I agree with most of the post. However, it's a well know fact that all
computers have pretty much the same weaknesses, in one way or another. The
stonewall is not a Fritz or Junior, or even Shredder problem. It's a horizon
problem that is a virus in the programming of computer chess today. What can
the programmers do about it? Crafty has code to detour closed positions, as
well as Rebel. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it fails. There is no proven
way for a programmer to stop a kingside attack. Not yet anyway.
I honestly don't believe that Ferret would do ANY better than ANY other
commercial chess program against a GM. As a matter of fact, take a look at
this:
[Event "ICC 5 7 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2001.06.03"]
[Round "-"]
[White "JRLOK"]
[Black "Ferret"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ICCResult "Black resigns"]
[WhiteElo "3395"]
[BlackElo "2966"]
[Opening "Queen's pawn game"]
[ECO "A46"]
[NIC "QP.05"]
[Time "16:55:15"]
[TimeControl "300+7"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bf4 d5 4. e3 Bd6 5. Nbd2 Bxf4 6. exf4 Qd6 7. g3 Bd7
8. c3 O-O 9. Bd3 c5 10. dxc5 Qxc5 11. Nb3 Qc7 12. Nbd4 Qc5 13. O-O Nc6 14.
Qe2 Rac8 15. Rad1 Qa5 16. a3 Qc5 17. Bb1 Rfe8 18. Rfe1 h6 19. Ne5 Nxd4 20.
Rxd4 Bb5 21. Qd2 Re7 22. h4 Ba6 23. g4 Qb5 24. g5 hxg5 25. hxg5 Nd7 26. Kg2
Nc5 27. Rh1 g6 28. f5 Nb3 29. Qf4 Nxd4 30. fxg6 Qf1+ 31. Rxf1 Bxf1+ 32. Kxf1
{Black resigns}
1-0
Look familiar? Ferret is not on ICC very often, and due to the server crash
last Saturday, I am unable to determine how many times JRLOK has actually played
Ferret. Perhaps Bruce could offer some info.
Slate
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.