Author: Chris Carson
Date: 09:26:14 06/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 11, 2001 at 08:36:04, Mark Young wrote: >On June 10, 2001 at 01:24:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 09, 2001 at 22:03:39, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>. >> >> >>Sorry but that is a bit too sarcastic for my tastes. I don't believe _anybody_ >>has said computers are not "GM-level" at fast time controls. These two games >>were 30 0. We had a 30 0 event on chess.net two years ago with 4 computers >>and 4 human GM players. The 4 computers finished in the first 4 places. >> >>This is old news. >> >>40 moves in 2 hrs is something different. > >Why? Crafty may not be a 2500+ elo program, but there is a program called Deep >Junior (You may have heard of it) that has played the best players in the world >at 40 moves in 2 hrs at Dortmund and walk way with a rating of 2700+. > >Please explain why this result and others 2500+ results by other programs don't >count. > >1. Junior was lucky? > >2. Did Mr. Ban payoff some of the GM's to lose to the Deep Junior? > >3. Other programs could not have achive such results so we can ignore this >result? > >4. Computer programs still have weaknesses, and as we know human Grandmaster >don't, as a result computers can not be considered Grandmasters in strength >regardless on any results? > >5. Grandmasters have very fragile egos, and it is in some of our interest to >placate the Grandmaster community to have continued access? > >6. Total results don't count as long as computers are still beatable and we can >show losses to prove this point? Mark, Your points are right on target. Many here (not me) will never say the programs are GM strength unless they never have a below 2600 performance in only one game and have 2600+ over thousands of games (very different standard than ELO ratings). That would mean that they would never draw a person lower than 2600 and would never loose to anyone with a rating lover than 3400 (2600+800). We are a long ways from that type of performance. This is of course not how ratings are established. Ratings are an average (50% mark) for people or computers not a 95% or 99% or 99.99% mark. GM's have single game performances that are very low (say a 2600 GM looses to a 2400 GM or 2400 IM) and the performance for that one game is 1600, how could that be?). GM's also have performances in tournaments or matches every week that are +200 or -200 (several games) or even +400 or -400 (fewer, but still there). I would quote specific human games here, but I do not want to offend anyone, so just take a look at any issue of TWIC. Programs can be beat, just as a GM can be beat (or any other person), the programs today learn not to repeat mistakes so they loose much fewer games than in the past. Also, hw is much faster and this results in more consistent games as well (unless there is a hw failure). Besides HW and leanring, the programs are just better than a few years ago. Here is a look at 49 games played against 2500 or higher GM's, these are all the games (except 12 DB games) that have been played against this level of competition: Program HW MHZ Perf Opp W D L Tot DJ 6 multi 8x700 2702 2702 2 5 2 9 Fritz 6/SSS multi 4x500 2678 2545 6 4 2 12 P. ConNerS multi 32x300 2663 2518 6 3 2 11 Rebel-Cen P3 866 2598 2531 2 3 1 6 Rebel-Cen K6 600 2537 2537 2 4 2 8 Socrates multi 2545 1 0 0 1 Cilkchess multi 2625 0 1 0 1 Ferrett multi 2630 0 0 1 1 Totals 19 20 10 49 That is almost a 2 to 1 margin of victory over very tough competition. I do not mean to pick on Ferrett. Ferrett is one of the strongest programs and is a GM strength. Taking the one game against a GM and extrapolating that Ferrett must me a 1830 (2630 - 800) player would be wrong in my opinion. I see no great trend in these games that show that at 40/2 the programs can be systematically beaten. Fritz/DJ/Rebel are very well known and could should be loosing not winning 2 to 1 if there was an easy way to beat these programs other than "Ambush" "Ambush" seems to be the best way to beat a program these days. "Ambush" is learning a programs weakness, then rest the program to default (and/or set program to play at a faster time control) then replay the weakness. I am working on ways to reduce the possibility of "Ambush" in my program "Dallas". It involves extensive learning and not allowing lerning to be reset. A discussion on "Ambush Defense" would be interesting for this group. :) 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.