Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:36:20 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. I have no idea how many good GM players you personally know. I happen to know several. And I watch them wreck hell on computers all the time. Mine included. Mine offers them some problems that most others don't, but that only makes mine _different_ and not necessarily better or worse against humans. I have seen Roman shred every program on ICC at times. 4-5-6 blitz games in a row once he finds a weakness. Most people simply disconnect after he gets into a rut like that. GMs _will_ find the weakest link in the program's skills. And they _will_ exploit it regularly. A program might produce a good result or two at first, due to "computer shock" but once the humans take notice, look out. I think that the Kramnik match could turn into a total debacle if he is very careful. Most programmers like to tout their programs as strong GM players. They do this as a marketing strategy. If you hooked 'em to a polygraph and asked them if they think their program is _really_ a GM player, you would be surprised at the results. Most programmers _know_ they are not there yet. The few that think they are are simply too weak chess-wise to know better. > >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
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.