Author: odell hall
Date: 14:04:27 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 14:06:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 13, 2001 at 13:31:43, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 13, 2001 at 12:24:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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). >> >>I agree, that why I think the Deep Fritz match will be more telling. Lucky for >>us we can disagee all we want...but the data is coming whoever is right. >> >>> >>>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. >> >>Yes I also agree, also Kramnik rating is so high DF only needs to draw a few >>games to have a GM performance. What will be more telling in this match is if >>DF-7 can win a game, somthing even GM Kasparov was unable to do. If Kramnik >>Draws every game with black DF-7 earns a GM performance with ease. That is why >>you need to take a closer look at Deep Junior at Dortmund were Deep Junior >>played all, and every game was important. > >IF DF draws all games as black, and loses all games as white, I wouldn't _begin_ >to say that is a GM performance. Rather, I would say it was just good match >strategy by the GM to not try to overcome the disadvantage of moving second in >those games. > > > >> >>> >>>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. >> >>I think for you to be correct, GM Hubner must win this match. We can argue later >>about how much DF lost by if that is the case. > >The only useful information will be learned dependiong on which of the following >happens: > >1. Hubner wins handily. Fritz is "suspect". > >2. Hubner wins. Hubner is better than fritz. Could be several hundred >rating points better, since the draws could be strategy for winning the match >at the cost of .5 points here and there. > >3. Fritz barely wins. Fritz is very likely a GM-level player. Not >necessarily anywhere near Hubner's rating, but still probably a GM, unless >we all see something very ugly going on. > Why would Fritz earn this esteemed title in your eyes by beating Hubner, but not Rebel Century3, which Crushed Van der Wiel, in the Same six game 40/2 setup?? Actually i think the win against Van der Wiel would prove more, since Van der Wiel is a known computer buster. >4. Fritz wins easily. Then it really must be a GM of some sort. > > > > > >> >>GM Hubner has the advantages you subscribe in your thoery that kills computers >>from being GM in your mind. ex. Knowing the computers weaknesses, match play, >>etc. > > >I don't know enough about his computer skills to make a comment there. But if >the games are really 40/2hrs, with a secondary time control as well, then if >he loses, it will make a big point IMHO. If it is just game in 2 hours, then >things might be interpreted differently depending on how the human loses. IE >ahead in the game, but blunders in the last few minutes of time scramble.. > > > > >> >>> >>>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. >> >>Thats fine I concede match tactics...but GM Hubner better win this match. A win >>or draw match by DF and your position will be suspect. > > >I would agree. > > > >> >>> >>>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. >> >>No backing off now....If you are correct in your postings GM Hubner should have >>no problem winning this match. > > >I'm not backing off a bit. I am simply saying that _if_ the human wins, it >doesn't matter whether he wins 6-0 or 3.5-2.5, since it is possible he could >win 6 0 but he chose to take the 'safe road' with black whenever possible. > >IE if Hubner wins, he is better. How much better can _not_ be determined by >the final match score. Which is why matches generally are not rated. IE if >I win the first game, I will try _very_ hard to draw the remainder and win the >match, even if I could win every game most likely. Because trying to win can >clutch defeat from the jaws of victory, which is foolish in match play. > > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>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 you are correct, GM Hubner should be able to crush DF by playing closed >>position in every game, if he so wishes. But I do concede match tactics. > > >"crushing" is a relative term. Quite often it means locking the position up >and waiting for your opponent to make a mistake. One cute strategy is to give >a pawn to the computer and lock things up. It will totally wreck its position >trying to hang on to that one pawn advantage without drawing. > > > > >> >>> >>>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. >> >>I agree, and will say more, if GM Hubner has a easy match were he is never in >>trouble or crushes DF I will concede the point. But if I see DF drawing or >>winning this match....other people need to take a hard look.
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.