Author: Mark Young
Date: 12:16:11 06/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2001 at 12:03:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 25, 2001 at 09:30:37, Graham Laight wrote: > >> >>I think that people who've been around a long time might disagree with this. >> >>The first victory by a computer against a GM was at G5 time control. The GM >>famously said, "Bloody iron monster" when he realised that he'd made the >>tactical mistake that would cost him the game. >> >>If my memory serves me correctly, that was in the late 1960s. I don't think that >>any computers beat GMs at tournament time controls until the 1990s. They simply >>weren't good enough. >> >>-g >> > > >If someone wants to _seriously_ wager that if a computer plays a GM at >1 minute per game, 5 minutes per game, 10 minutes per game, 15 minutes >per game and 30 minutes per game, and the computer will do better and >better as the games become longer, I will set the experiment up on ICC >anytime they want. > >Of course, I don't think anyone _seriously_ believes that. > >I can't imagine anyone being so foolish. > >One good example was back around 1991 or 1992. IM Mike Valvo played deep >thought lots of blitz games at various ACM events and he simply got mopped up >badly, never winning a game and barely drawing one here and there. He played >it two 24-hour-per-move games in rec.games.chess, and he blew it out in both >games, with the machine never having any sort of a chance at all. > >That "gets better with more time theory" is correct in one regard. More time >means better analysis by the machine. This was what I was saying... But it is also wrong in a more important >regard. The human gets better at a faster rate of change than the computer, >as time controls are lengthened. The question is how much if any, and for what strength of players....did not some expert corr. player play some top computers in corr. chess....from the last I heard the computers were doing ok. The point I was making...search depth does correct some positional flaws and it is risky to assume the computers will play the same mistakes at fast and slow time controls...as some GM's have found this out the hard way. > >It has _always_ been so. It will be so for a _long_ time. More time reduces >the importance of tactics, which is what the computer lives and survives on. >As tactics dwindle, reliance on "knowledge" increases. And here, the computer >is woefully behind.
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.