Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:43:50 10/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 2001 at 16:12:29, Sune Larsson wrote: >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 > > > Very interesting reading. When I played actively, my national rating was > about 2270-2300 - and that was several years ago. A while ago I tried > a serie of 21 serious games vs 12 different GM personalities in CM8. They > were played on a PIII 800 with 64 Mb hash for the program - 40 moves in > 40 minutes. My preparation was absolutely none - no openings nothing. > Simply played right from start. Also I had no interest in creating > anti computer play. The result was exactly 1/3 meaning 7/21. When I look > at these games I'm certain that my play was not above 2300 - but probably > in the range of 2200-2300 somewhere. Some wins mixed with hard fought > draws and stupid mistakes. With 14/21 for the program, is it then correct > to assume that the program performed around 230 points better than me? > If this is correct, and my rating is put to 2250 - CM performed around > 2480. In 40/40. 14/23 is almost 2 of 3. 3 of 4 is roughly 200. 2/3 should be less than that... Bob (14/23 is 60% wins, for those wanting more accurate results. That sounds like maybe 100 rating points rather than 230 if I understood you correctly). > On the other hand - if human player Jacques Tigér went to South America > and performed what his cousin - the program - did, he would have got > a GM-norm with 2 points margin! Results tell. > > Sune
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.