Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:34:53 09/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 2001 at 00:39:39, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 06, 2001 at 13:13:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Here is my take: >> >>If DF wins convincingly (IE by a more than one-game margin) then I will have >>to re-think my GM evaluation. If DF wins by .5 or 1.0 points, it is possible >>that Kramnik was too conservative, then lost one game by accident, and couldn't >>catch up. If the match is tied, it won't say much either. If Kramnik wins >>by some narrow margin, it could mean one of two things. He was lucky. Or he >>was ultra-conservative. > >Don't you think it a bit odd that it would take a convincing win over the world >champion to convince you that the program is of GM strength? :-) No... for the reasons I gave. IE suppose the first 7 games are simple draws, dictated by the GM's play. And suppose he tries to win the last game and makes a simple tactical error. I watched a GM game on ICC yesterday between Polgar and Short (short was white). Polgar defended nicely against a kingside attack and ended up a pawn up. But in a very hard to win position. Suddenly, Short played Rg2 and Crafty's score _instantly_ went to -5 (black was winning). And I mean _instantly_. And the deeper it searched, the better this got for black. When I looked at the board for about 10 seconds, I could see the problem too (white was losing a pinned piece due to a queen check that made the king move and simultaneuosly attacked the pinned piece once more than it was defended.). Is short much worse than Polgar? hardly. That is why a win due to a simple error won't be very convincinging. If Kramnik comes out swinging, and plays to win in every game, then a single point victory by fritz will mean a _lot_. That is why I said "it all depends on the final score and the chess that was played in each individual game." A conservative approach would be to play cautiously in each game, waiting for a positional mistake that you believe you can exploit to win. If you do this and draw the first 7 games by choice, then the last game isn't going to be a good indication of who is better. If you try to win every game by playing either anti-computer or traditional chess, then the match result will be more revealing. > >My personal opinion is that when this "are computers GM strength?" debate began, >you were correct to say that no, but that times have since changed. I don't for >a moment doubt that the leading computer programs can be made to look pathetic >from time to time, but the flip side is that they can and do play some pretty >damn good chess games as well. > >Dave They can play good chess when the humans let them do so. But block the position and every program I have seen looks like a complete moron. The question is, will the human choose to do this, or will he choose to play normal chess where a program can often look just like a super-gm given the right positions. If I play you in tennis, and I know you have a dynamite forehand, you are _never_ going to return a ball from your right side of the court, because I am never going to hit it there, except when I drive you wide to the other side and then want to make you run a bit. IE I will _never_ play to your strength, as it simply makes no sense, other than to occasionally keep you honest.
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.