Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 12:34:08 10/26/01
As I was reading the seemingly neverending discussion about computers being GMs or not, one thing strikes me. The vast majority of people discuss only the results of programs vs. GMs or other strong programs. Very few seem to focus on their performance versus reasonable, but significantly weaker-than-GM opponents. As a couple of examples, it seems that the majority of posters on here consider Fritz 5 and Tiger 13 as GM strength computers on fast machines. Clearly, they can hang with very good GMs on, say, a Celeron 800. If we look only at their performance against a theoretical field of FIDE 2500 type GMS, these programs would likely grab a performance rating in the neighborhood of 2500-2600, which is reasonable to say 'GM strength'. What to make, however, of the notion that I, a random USCF 2100 can usually score 1/8-1/4 against Tiger 13 on a Celeron 800. That equates to a rating (against me) for Tiger of approximately USCF 2300-2400, which is clearly *not* GM strength. While I rarely beat Tiger, I frequently draw it, at time controls ranging from G/5 to G/30, at which one would suppose that a comp would be even stronger than at 40/2. I have a very close friend who is also a USCF 2100, who has a similar record against Fritz 5. When I had a copy of Chess genius a few years ago, this ability to draw it almost at will was even more pronounced. So which is it? Is Tiger the GM program that can perform at a 2550 FIDE level against GMs, or is it the USCF 2300 that it plays like against me? I have played several GMs in tournament play and at fast speeds on the internet. I strongly doubt that I could get 1/8 or 1/4 against most decent GMs in a match, yet I can fairly easily do that against many programs. If you do not believe me, I'd be happy to show you multiple games against computers where their evaluation said they were clearly winning, but in reality had drifted into a drawn R+P ending or Bisop of opposite colour ending. Happens all the time. The main reason I posted this is to assert my position that we really *cannot* say whether or not computers ar GMs. The way in which computers play does not make that realistic yet. A computer will (in all liklihood) take a draw by repition against me when down .15 just as it will against a GM. I know that you can tune that by artificial means such as contempt bonuses and penalties, but even with that, computers that I have seen *simply do not play like humans play*, not only in terms of style, but also in terms of performance. If I played an 8 game match against GM Randomovich, and I scored 1.5, would we call that a GM performance? Likely not. But if GM Randomovich plays in a tournament and scores 4-4 against 2550 GMs, we would. A Computer certainly can do the latter: but it *also* does the former with regularity. So, in reality, is it *really* GM strength? Chris
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.