Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:32:58 09/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 2001 at 23:19:20, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 07, 2001 at 13:34:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >Fair enough. > >>>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. > >It seems to me that there is a large percentage of GMs who are either unable or >unwilling to take this approach when they play programs. Joel Benjamin is >excellent at pounding the things (that's why the DB team got him onboard) but >most GMs don't have the same ability he does at knowing how the machine thinks >and using that against it. There are several that know the machines pretty well. Roman certainly comes to mind. Julio Kaplan is another as he played Cray Blitz a lot of games as he lived very close to Harry in California. Benjamin comes to mind. Mike Valvo used to be hell vs computers and could probably beat _any_ computer in a correspondence-type game (24 hours or more per move). Yasser is another good example. And I am sure I have forgotten others. Mecking has learned the "how to draw a computer" strategies pretty well on ICC and uses them to advantage when the machines will allow it. Shirov also seems to have a good grasp of how to slowly build up a kingside attack. > >We saw Fritz get smoked badly in a late game in the Dutch Championship, but we >also saw it smash a GM who was trying to keep things closed just a few rounds >earlier. Even when GMs are trying to play anti-computer, they don't always >succeed. Add that to those who don't bother or are unable to do so, and you've >got a significant number of games where the programs are quite capable of >winning. > >Dave
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.