Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:00:09 06/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 27, 2001 at 17:24:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... No By this logic a pure 2400 player can get GM norm in one of every 4 events when GM norm is possible because this player needs performance of 2600 for GM norm and I do not see it happens. > > > >> >>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. There are tactical positions when the machine has no chance against 2600 but there are more tactical positions when the 2600 humans blunder. 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.