Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:20:28 07/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2001 at 06:31:45, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 08, 2001 at 00:13:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 07, 2001 at 23:21:52, odell hall wrote: >> >>>> >>> I really don't understand what your saying, since even on icc computers are >>>performing like supergrandmasters. >> >> >>I'm sure you don't. But when you have time, point out a single "super GM" >>that loses to a 2000 player. The computers are good, no doubt. But they >>are not _that_ good yet... > >1)I do not know about super GM's who lost against 2000 players but I am going to >be surprised if there were no cases when it happened. What about the case where a computer loses reasonably often? And draws 1/3 to 1/2 of the games? A GM will certainly make an occasional blunder, or overlook some deep tactical shot that the 2000 player will on a few occasions find. But if a 2000 player simply outplays the machine game after game, only to make a tactical mistake here and there, then that computer is going to have a hard time convincing me it is a GM, even if it wins _every_ single game against that player. A 2000 player is not going to positionally outplay a GM game after GM only to lose after making a tactical error. > >I know about 2 cases in Israel when GM's lost against 2000 and 2100 players at >tournament time control and I am sure there are more that I do not know. > >In the case of the loss against the 2100 I know that everything was opening >preperation. I don't even count that kind of thing... Against the computers on ICC I am talking about a different thing altogether. > >In the case of the loss against the 2000 player it was not opening preperation >and the GM simply did not play well. > >I guess that super GM's play less games against 2000 players relative to >computers and this is one of the reasons that they lose less games. > > >2)It is known that computers have weaknesses but it proves nothing. > >If a computer program scores 99% against 2000 players and 85% against GM's then >I think that it is right to say that it is performing like a super GM and the >fact that the super GM may get 99.9% against 2000 players does not change it >because the super GM may get less against GM's. > >Uri If you look at only results, (mainly blitz games on ICC) to predict how longer time controls will go, that is a mistake. A human will totally outplay a computer at blitz on ICC only to lose to a tactic he didn't have time to examine fully. As the time controls stretch out, the human's positional skills don't particularly get better (neither does the computer's) but the tactical errors are reduced. Humans can play tactical chess. Kasparov proved this against DB and DB2, not making significant tactical errors (except for tactical judgement in last game). If the human is careful, then that takes away the one place where the computer is very formidable. And leaves positional play where most programs look like idiots in many cases.
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.