Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:24:12 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 10:24:56, Mark Young wrote: >In this upcoming match next month Deep Fritz tops on the SSDF list will be >playing a 6 game match with GM Hubner (2620 Elo). > >This match should be good indication if computers are now grandmasters. GM >Hubner at 2620 is very close to the performance rating of the computers that >have played grandmasters at tournament time controls. > >Deep Fritz is a well-known program, so GM Hubner should have ample time to find >holes in the program and exploit them if he is able. > >Being match play should also help the Grandmaster if Bob Hyatt is correct. (I >also think this is correct). > >If Fritz puts in a Grandmaster performance in this upcoming match, the evidence >that computers are grandmasters start to become overwhelming. I would not disagree, unless Hubner goes hog-wild. IE the Kramnik match is for a small fortune. Kramnik will have a huge incentive to win. But he may well win by one game only, since that is all that is needed (if I were playing such a match against a computer, I would take all the 'easy' draws that came along until I reached a position that looked like it was winnable without having any unnecessary opportunities to lose as well). The Kramnik match will be interesting. I think he +could+ probably overwhelm DF. I don't think he will because the strategy for winning a match is to not try to win every game. Probably he would want to draw every game with black and play for reasonable winning chances with white. If this was not a match, but a series of 6 games with $100,000 per game for each win, the strategy would change. Which means that in the Hubner match, Hubner might win every game, he might barely win the match (by playing very safe) or he might lose marginally or by a whopping score. But winning every game is not the goal in a 6 game match, and a GM will likely keep that in mind. This means that it is _much_ more difficult to judge the strength of the computer, since there is no way to compare match play. The machine will play every game as if it is the _only_ game. The human uses a different approach to attempt to maximize match-winning chances. If the computer wins, it might win because the human was better in most every game but he went for the safe "draw" only to lose the last game (IE DB/Kasparov in 1997). If the human wins by 1/2 point, it could be because they were very close, or it could be because the human was very conservative. > >If fritz gets crush, and I would think this is what Bob Hyatt theory would >indicate from his postings, it will be time for us that think computers are >grandmasters to reassess. I don't think "getting crushed" is likely in a match. Because the strategy to win a match is not the same as the strategy to win the maximum number of games out of a set of N. Of course, the computer knows nothing about this so it is certainly possible that the human gets crushed. :) If Fritz can beat Hubner in a 6 game match, it will definitely say something about the computer being a GM player. Not a final and convincing statement, but a strong one for sure. If the human wins, then the conclusion will be less informative.
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.