Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:35:37 10/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2001 at 02:26:40, Sune Larsson wrote: >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 >> I actually use a short "cheat sheet" I have at the office. I have seen several different formula-type approximations that are simple to calculate, but I haven't saved any of them. 2/3 is fairly close to 3/4 of course... Perhaps someone with real numbers handy will post the exact numbers. In any case, the basic premise here is interesting, because I have seen this "draw" problem for a long time and worked on it. If a GM wants a draw, it is very difficult to avoid. Ditto for IM players although there are a few things to do. Even masters can draw more than they should if the program doesn't have some code to avoid certain types of pawn structures... >> >> >>> 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.