Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:21:20 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. Several reasons... but the #1 reason is that the computers are simply _not there_ yet. Yes, they will produce a 2700 rating here. But then they also produce a 2100 rating there, but _nobody_ points out the 2100 results because that doesn't show the point they want to make. If you think computers are 2700, fine. Your opinion. I happen to disagree at present. I don't think they are 2700, or 2600, and for the most part I don't think they are much if any over 2500. I've produced way too many of these 2600+ results myself, yet I _know_ what my code has and lacks. And in some cases I don't lack anything that is in the commercial programs, in some cases I do. But so long as a program plays a game where a GM says "2100" it is _never_ going to be legitimate to call that program a 2500+ program. A human GM just will _not_ play a game like that. They _will_ make an occasional tactical blunder, to be sure. But they won't play a series of moves that leaves a real GM chuckling... That is what I base it on. I watch these programs play on ICC all the time, I watch them enter dead lost endgames, saying they are winning. I watch them struggle to keep the bishop pair when one bishop is so bad you could replace it with a pawn and not notice the difference. I watch them fiddle around while their king gets mercilously attacked. I watch them fight for a rook on the 7th when the opponent's king is beyond the 7th and there are no pawns there. The list goes on and on. Just ask a good GM on ICC to give you a quick set of 2-3 _major_ deficiencies in a program he just played, whether he won or not... > >1. Junior was lucky? In a way, yes. But just take his account on ICC and find an IM that beat him a couple of games in a row. Then find a GM that that IM beat a couple of games in a row. Then talk to the IM about the difference in the two. > >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? No.. please feel free to pick all the _good_ results and harp on those. Don't take into consideration all the _ugly_ things that happen. Just pick the good. > >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? GMs have a tactical weakness that the computers can exploit. So long as the GM players play into positions where tactics abound. When they don't, then your statement is essentially correct. > >5. Grandmasters have very fragile egos, and it is in some of our interest to >placate the Grandmaster community to have continued access? Has nothing to do with anything, IMHO. > >6. Total results don't count as long as computers are still beatable and we can >show losses to prove this point? Until you have played chess long enough to understand the issue, there is little I can say to change your mind. If you ask _any_ programmer that knows something about chess, or _any_ GM that knows something about computers, you will discover they feel similar to what I feel. Unless you ask a programmer that has a motive for "stretching" the truth a bit (ie sales).
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.