Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:16:43 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 17:04:27, odell hall wrote: >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. Nonsense, Van der Wiel is rank 611th in the world, GM Hubner is ranked 70th. You do not get bonus points for being a so called computer buster. Van der Wiel is not even a 2500+ Grandmaster. The computer was the favorite in the match IMO. The Van der wiel match was strong evidence, but no overwhelming enough to convince all, since Van der Wiel in not a strong Grandmaster. > > > > >>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.