Author: odell hall
Date: 15:41:47 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 18:16:43, Mark Young wrote: >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. > Inaccurate, Van Der Wiel was rated 2558 at the time of the match, and rebel actually Won 4-2, Shroeder simply gave Charity in the last game, but on the board Van der Wiel was busted, so if you beat a 2558 Grandmaster 4-2 in a Six game match that suggest how much of an elo advantage?? For me this was all the evidence needed. >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.