Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:17:19 09/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
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.). Official FIDE July 2001 Rating List : 1 Kasparov, Garry g RUS 2838 13.04.1963 2 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2802 25.06.1975 3 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2794 11.12.1969 4 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2749 18.07.1977 5 Adams, Michael g ENG 2744 17.11.1971 6 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2731 18.03.1969 7 Leko, Peter g HUN 2730 08.09.1979 8 Bareev, Evgeny g RUS 2719 21.11.1966 9 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2711 15.03.1975 10 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2706 04.07.1972 11 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2704 24.06.1968 12 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2704 05.12.1979 13 Smirin, Ilia g ISR 2702 21.01.1968 14 Khalifman, Alexander g RUS 2700 18.01.1966 15 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2695 17.06.1976 16 Georgiev, Kiril g BUL 2695 28.11.1965 17 Van Wely, Loek g NED 2695 07.10.1972 18 Karpov, Anatoly g RUS 2692 23.05.1951 19 Dreev, Alexey g RUS 2690 30.01.1969 20 Polgar, Judit g HUN 2686 23.07.1976 21 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2684 11.10.1983 22 Ye, Jiangchuan g CHN 2677 20.11.1960 23 Lautier, Joel g FRA 2675 12.04.1973 24 Azmaiparashvili, Zurab g GEO 2674 16.03.1960 25 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2669 31.10.1983 26 Zhang, Zhong g CHN 2667 05.09.1978 27 Onischuk, Alexander g UKR 2667 03.09.1975 28 Short, Nigel D. g ENG 2664 01.06.1965 Note the first American on the list is probably Seirawan? Exactly 14 people are >= 2700 and exactly 96 persons are >= 2600 (>= 2700 also included) short is around 22 points lower rated than polgar But it's important to realize there are only about 100 strong chessplayers in this world who can play a game without blundering a piece away and play the rest strong too. >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_. Right, the number of strong chessplayers in the world is very limited and they are prepared for all the stronger players, so they usually are happy with a draw versus a computer as they don't see the thing as competition. >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.