Author: Chris Carson
Date: 11:15:05 06/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2001 at 12:51:19, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 05, 2001 at 11:24:09, Robert Hyatt 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. :) >>>> >>>>Of course, the computers are all super-GM players, so this discussion really >>>>is _not_ happening. :) >>> >>>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. >>> >>>Many programs are GM strength(> 2500 elo), but Super-GM...I don't think so >>>either. >> >>"many"??? Shredder has beaten them all in the last couple of major events. >>Do you think _it_ is a >2500 player after looking at the above game? > >You cannot decide about the rating of a player based on one game. >The fact that Shredder beated other programs does not prove that it is better >than them. > >This kind of game convince me to guess that Shredder beated other programs in >tournaments mainly because of better opening preperation(better opening >preperation is not about getting better position out of book but about not >getting positions when shredder does mistakes like Bg4-c8). >> >>I'm not going to argue the point as it is a pretty hopeless thing to do. But >>so long as computers play like the above, I don't think any reasonable human >>will ever say "that is a >2500 player." > >They do not play like this every game and it is possible to get more than >2500 with some weak games. > >The facts are that the results of top programs against humans suggest that they >can get more than 2500. > >I also prefer not to count games when a buyer of the program operates the >program because I suspect that Stefan could use different opening book in a real >tournament against humans. > >Uri Uri, I agree with you on this. At least for me, I look at results since both Digital GM's and Human GM's make mistakes and have a few bad results from time to time (take a look at any issue of TWIC and you will see plenty of +200 or -200 performances and lots of silly mistakes by 2500+ players). The Digital GM's continue to have fewer and fewer bad games under "arbitrated events" as the HW gets faster and the SW gets better (Chess Tiger on the palm is a very good example of continued SW improvements). For me, exceptions do not make a rule, but do provide valuable information for the programer to make improvements and are great for me as a Human to keep my hopes of winning alive. I love to see a Human (any rating) get a draw or a win! However, most of the draws and wins these days seem to be an "ambush" to me. I mean that I do not see many consistant results for a < GM beating a Digital GM over a long period of time. I wonder how adaptable the human is if the learning (book and positional) has been through a few games and the basic "ambush" is avoided by the Digital GM? If Digital GM's are very weak and easy to figure out (I can not do this on a consistant basis, but maybe someone can), I wonder why I have not seen results where the Human begins to win most of the time and the Digital GM almost never wins/draws. I have not seen any reports of this in a very long time (going back to the 486 days) or any "arbitrated results" like this. The current results I have seen show the opposite, the Digital GM's are winning by a margin of 2.5 to 1 after about 235 games against FIDE rated players. When will I see the results go the other way? I am of course talking about more than a random game here. I need to seen several (say 5) different <2300 players beat several programs (say the top 5) on > 1GHZ machines in a long match (10 games). If a critic can set up an arbitrated 5 on 5 round robin match at 40/2 and the humans win, I would be convinced. I can get a couple of wins or a few draws from time to time if I really practice (my own improvement) and learn to exploit the Digital GM's mistakes before it can adapt. Even Kramnik needs three months to prepare his trap to ensure a victory in a short match. I wonder... Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.