Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:24:25 06/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2001 at 11:56:16, Uri Blass wrote: >On June 27, 2001 at 10:42:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 27, 2001 at 04:15:23, Martin Schubert wrote: >> >>>On June 26, 2001 at 12:05:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 26, 2001 at 09:31:01, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 26, 2001 at 09:05:15, Chessfun wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 26, 2001 at 08:53:13, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Wow, this is some "2100" player. I wish I could do this. I do not see why the >>>>>>>players do not just play the trojan horse, stonewall, KIA, KID, french, dutch, >>>>>>>2.Na3, or better yet, just set up some closed lost position that any "2100" >>>>>>>player could handle and trounce the program. Since the programs are only "2100" >>>>>>>positionally/strategically and not "2400", it should be a piece of cake on a >>>>>>>866Mhz PIII. This must all be a "hoax", these players must be "paid" by the >>>>>>>evil chess empire "Chessbase". This can't be real, close your eyes, cover your >>>>>>>ears, and for crying out loud, the "Emperior" has wonderful clothes on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Quick e-mail everyone the memo: Programs are only "2100" >>>>>>>positionaly/strategically/in closed positions. The word has not gotten out yet. >>>>>>>Why hasn't CNN put the word out, it must be a "Chessbase" plot driven by greedy >>>>>>>corporations. >>>>>> >>>>>>Where are you coming up with this 2100? >>>>>>Is it from a post of Bob's where he wrote in certain positions they >>>>>>are 2100?. Please point me to whatever the post was. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sarah. >>>>> >>>>>Yes it is and a couple of others. I did not save the post, I should have, but I >>>>>do not keep a file of posts on people, well one or two posts from time to time. >>>>>:) >>>>> >>>>>I will get off the "2100" bandwagon, I have made my point, unless it is brought >>>>>up again and then I will defend my point of view, but I will keep the offending >>>>>post as proof. Usually I am satisfied if the person just retracts the >>>>>statement, I have to do this myself from time to time. :) >>>>> >>>>>I may look it up in the archives or maybe not. But the "2100" statement was >>>>>made and then defended as the only possible result in "this type of position". >>>>> >>>>>Mark Young and Uri were also posting on that thread and to that message. They >>>>>may have it or can link quickly to it. >>>>> >>>>>Best Regards, >>>>>Chris Carson >>>> >>>> >>>>You can pick any number you want. I will look for a position and move that >>>>even a 1600 player wouldn't play. They happen in comp games all the time, if >>>>you look at enough games. >>>> >>>>2100 isn't magic. In my case, I just used 2100 to mean "bad" and 2600 >>>>to mean "good". >>> >>>"Bad" mistake. If you say "2100" then everyone will remember you that you said >>>"2100". Not "2150", not "1600". Everyone asks you why "2100". Nobody thinks >>>about that you could have meant something different than just the number. What a >>>pity. >> >> >>For those that assume ratings are "absolute", they will probably _never_ under- >>stand anything I write with respect to Elo numbers. I don't believe that I >>_only_ said 2100. My current feeling is that computers play positionally like >>a 2100 player on average. They play some 1600 moves, and they play some 2600 >>moves. So an "average". In some types of positions, they play tactics like a >>2700+ player (these are positions that rarely come up in human vs human games, >>where pieces are pinned, hanging everywhere, lots of threats, etc...) In some >>types of positions they play tactics like a 2100 player. (No I don't think >>they will _ever_ play tactically like a 1600 player, but computers can and do >>fall to very deep/forcing tactical lines simply because the primitive search >>extensions we use don't help everywhere.) >> >>Machines _certainly_ don't play tactically like 2900 players, otherwise they >>would _never_ lose a blitz game. Those that think "blitz is solved as far as >>computers go" just haven't seen the right players... > >If they do not play better than 2600 in nothing they could not get performance >of more than 2700(2600 can be lucky and get performance of more than 2700 in one >tournament but a player that is 2100 in part of the positions and 2600 in part >of the positions has no practical chance to get performance of more than 2700). That is statistically incorrect. A pure 2500 player can be expected to produce a 2700 result in one of every 4 events he plays in. Just because of the statistical anomalies... > >They play perfect in 5 piece tablebases position but this was not the reason for >Junior's performance of 2702. > >I know that there is tactics that they do not see but 2900 level in tactics does >not mean to see everything. >2900 is not perfect. 2900 means they are better than every human around by a big margin, tactically. I don't believe that is correct. IE every program I know of fails to find the Shirov Bh3 move from 2 years ago. Yet he calculated that to a forced win. In those kinds of tactical positions, the machine has no chance today. > >It only means better than the humans of today and better does not mean better in >every position. > >Uri
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.