Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 13:10:28 10/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 2001 at 15:34:08, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: >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 I have also followed this discussion with interest, and one thing seems to pop up everytime: People (of considerable strenght say 1900-2200) playing against computers find it "easy" to draw them, but hardly ever win over them and therefore they can achieve a relatively high rating against them, but when we see the 2500-2800 (and above:) GM's play computers, they play to win from the word go! only if the game dictates a draw they will settle (yes i saw Huebner v Deep Fritz) with this in mind it is understandable, if i am right in my observation, that computers could get a better performance in the company of highranked GM's, since complications favors the comps, or so it seems. In other words it appears to be fairly easy to draw a comp at will, alsmost impossible, in comparison, to beat the comp at will and very easy to lose unintentionally ;) Regards Jonas
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.