Author: odell hall
Date: 04:17:49 07/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2001 at 06:47:59, Christophe Theron wrote: >On July 10, 2001 at 06:07:21, odell hall wrote: > >>On July 10, 2001 at 05:49:39, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On July 10, 2001 at 05:02:35, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>BTW the first round of the match is completed now. ChessTiger 14 reached very >>>>>good 61.5 %. Could someone >>>>>please calculate, how much ELO difference 61.5 % mean compared to the average >>>>>ELO of the opponents? >>>>>Thanks a lot! >>>> >>>>That means a +92 Elo difference >>> >>> >>>Sorry Vincent, but this is not right. >>> >>>A 61.5% winning percentage means approximately a 80.5 Elo points difference. >>> >>>The rule of thumb is very simple: take the winning percentage, substract 50, >>>then multiply by 7. >>> >>>This rule is an approximation (but a very good one) that works only in the range >>>20% to 80%. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >> >> Hi Christophe >> >> >>Congradulations on your enourmous successs, I believe i, and others would like >>you to comment on the result of Chess Tiger in Argentina, Please no one will >>think your bragging if you do, you maade computer chess history and i think you >>deserve to bathe in the limelight. Did you expect this result for tiger? Do you >>believe Computers are Grandmasters? I know this is a very controversial subject, >>but please express your honest opinion, Several programmers have already taken a >>stand , what is yours? > > > >Thanks Odell. > >First I would apologize for not answering on this subject earlier. > >Somebody (was it you?) has posted a message "to Christophe Théron", and I have >unfortunately been unable to answer. Hi Chris I am happy for your response, no it was not me who originally asked, for you to express your feeling on the argintina result, but i was hoping you would, you are to modest not to respond, this is not only a great day for you, but for computer chess Science in General. Keep up the Very good Work! I > >The reason is that I was working very hard on Chess Tiger for Palm (now >released). > >About the result in Argentina I must say that I been caught by surprise. I did >not expect much from this event because I expected much more resistance from the >human side! Chess Tiger has been used, when I had recommended them to use Chess >Tiger (but apparently it was not possible to change at the last minute), and I >expected the human players to have less problems against the more quiet playing >style of Chess Tiger. Well... "quiet"... as long as you do not give it an >opportunity to break into your defenses... > >Maybe I did not expect much because I have slowly been intoxicated by people who >say that current chess program are not at the GM level. I guess I was about to >believe it, and I had very little data from my program against very strong human >players. > >But what we have all discovered is that GMs have weaknesses too and that a >commercially available chess program can easily point these weaknesses out. > >Now to be absolutely honest I must say that the GMs in Argentina have probably >been caught by surprise as well. I think that the tournament rating of 2788 is >probably too high (by 10 or 20 points... no, just kidding :). > >I believe it is indeed possible for a human player to increase his performance >against computers by learning their weaknesses, but I also believe that there >are limits to this. > >If you listen to some people here, they say that with the right anticomputer >techniques it is possible for a 2100 elo player to stand a top chess program. > >This is wrong. And do not forget that chess programmers have only started to >program anti-human strategies. Chess Tiger has a "antihuman" mode, but which has >not taken a lot of time to develop. I mean, if beating human players was my only >priority, there are several very important techniques I can think about that I >would have added to the program, and nobody would dream anymore about a 2100 elo >player beating a top chess program. I think that all my colleagues would be able >to do the same. > >Specializing in anticomputer strategies might allow one to inflate its rating >against computers by, say, 100 elo points, but that's all. > >But the interesting point here is that if it is applied by really strong human >players, then the human side still have some good years. And I like this, >because it means the competition between man and machine is not over. > >I think the SSDF elo rating is comparable to human FIDE rating, if you consider >that the human players have not specifically prepared for computers. So in a >sense the result of Chess Tiger in Argentina confirms this. > >But as I said it is possible, maybe, for a human player to inflate by 100 its >rating by preparing very hard for computers. So if you take the elo of the best >programs on the SSDF, which is approximately 2650, it means that in order to >equal a top program under tournament conditions you need to be 2550 elo yourself >at least (if the program is running on K6-2 450). > >There are lots of 2550+ players, so it leaves a lot of opportunities for the >part of the human kind which uses only his brain to beat the part of the human >kind who has decided to enhance his brain abilities with external tools. > >Yeah... Don't forget that it's not man vs computer actually. Who can really >believe that? It's man vs man. > > > > Christophe
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.