Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 23:26:40 10/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 2001 at 22:43:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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). It was 14/*21* for CM giving 66.7% - 33.3%. 11 wins 6 draws 4 losses. Is it then more accurat to calculate the difference in performance like 16.7 x 7 = 116.9 points? Sune > > > >> 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.