Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:12:01 07/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 2001 at 12:59:15, Dan Andersson wrote: >It has been successfully argued that common sense does not exist, until someone >needs to make a shaky argument. The computers performance level seems beyond >doubt i.e. 'hard data'. The only thing remaining is formulating hypotheses and >trying them against available information. There are many factors that are >possible but, more than a few are in the programs favour: mental fatigue, >stubborn defence, tactical combacks and very good opening preparation. I don't think there is any question that many computers have had GM level performances or that they are the tactical equal (often superior) of a GM. The question is of certainty and proof. I would say the following: It has been 'demonstrated' that computers are of GM caliber. It has not been mathematically 'proven' yet in a rigorous manner. At any rate, if they aren't today, they will be soon. And it doesn't matter anyway. The tactical skill of computers is so high that on a high end machine, it's a fluke to beat one for 99.999% of everyone who plays against them. Yace, an amateur program, just got 298/300 on WAC at 5 seconds per position the other day. Now, there is nothing magical about the WAC set. It could just as well be any other 300 tactical problems. Will any GM find 298/300 at 5 seconds per problem maximum allowed? I'd be pretty surprised if the GM didn't miss at least ten [I'd probably miss over half ;-)]. And yet, the GM's have some insight that computers really do lack. Take that Swedish game the other day -- the one that I beat my brains out on. It wasn't just me that got it wrong. I analyzed the positions later using computers, some of them for hours, and every program I tried got several of them wrong even after hours of pondering. The GM's saw the right track at normal tournament time control (they might have been IM's -- I don't remember for sure, but I think both ELO's were around 2500). So -- are computer's GM's? Depends on who you ask and what you are trying to demonstrate. I think it is just something we want to hang on to to soothe our battered ego's. "Of course I lost -- the darn thing's a GM!" That sounds a lot better than "I got out-thought by a hunk of tin." At blitz there is simply no question that computers are the best players in the world. Eventually, inevitably, they will be the best at any time control, including postal. Where are they now? Maybe GM. Maybe not. Either way it works out the same: Computer:10 Dann:0 ;-)
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.