Author: Chris Carson
Date: 10:18:14 06/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 11, 2001 at 12:26:14, Chris Carson wrote: >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: > S/W Mp MHZ PR 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.