Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 03:43:57 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 06:18:04, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 08, 2001 at 04:50:27, David Dory wrote: > >>On July 06, 2001 at 08:28:55, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >> >>>On July 06, 2001 at 06:07:13, David Dory wrote: >>> >>> >>>>When the GM's have the incentive to wallop the micro's, and yes I mean $$$$$, >>>>(see Hyatt's post below this one regarding "Anti-computer playing..."). THEN >>>>we'll see the REAL ability of the programs versus the GM's. >>>> >>>>Ask yourself just how hard are you going to train yourself to beat a micro when >>>>the micro can't win the prize$$$$, anyway? >>>> >>> >>>So you are saying that actually the computer are stronger than GM's...and you >>>are stating that it's due to the lack of preparation in "anticomp" techniques ? >> >>What I'm saying is that the real test (Is the program == GM) has not yet been >>made clear. There are a number of reasons, such as: >> >> 1. It's a brand new program - GM has no/few games of the programs to study >> over for preparation. Deep Blue vs. Kasparov is a classic example. > >We are not talking about Deep blue but about commercial programs when there are >a lot of ssdf games to study. > >> >> 2. GM's are not competing against the program, because the programs can't win >> any prizes/money anyway. > >GM's can get better ranking relative to other humans by beating the machine and >better ranking means more money so they still have motivation to win against the >machine. > > > If GM's are only competing for the championship >> against other GM's, guess who they will prepare for, and fight hardest >> against?? > >GM's have a lot of humans to play against them. >They cannnot prepare against everyone of them for a long time so usually they >prefer to play the lines that they know to play without special preperations for >different opponents. > >> >>Naturally, I'd like to see the programs have equal footing with the humans in >>the majority of chess titles and championships. Only when these conditions are >>met can we really determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of both the >>programs and the humans. > >programs played in the israeli league when the team had the right to choose the >player to play against the machine and inspite of this bad conditions programs >could do performance that was close to 2500(Rebel's performance was 2541). > >I believe that if the average GM had to play under the same conditions when the >opponents can choose the player to play against him(her) then (s)he would do >worse performance than the programs in the Israeli league. > >I guess that having the right to choose the opponent is worth not less than 100 >elo also against humans. > >If you remember also that today's programs are better than they were 1.5 years >ago >then it seems clear to me that programs are GM strength. > >Uri Very well put, Uri. I think that chess programs reached that milestone only pretty recently , thanks to the powerful hardware advancements in micros, but mainly thanks to the advanced software algorithms implemented in top programs.
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.