Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 06:33:40 10/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2001 at 11:08:38, James T. Walker wrote: >I'd like to interject another thought into this discussion. I play 9-ball >(Billiards) a lot and practice at home on my own table. I often "Break & Run" >the rack. I have done it at home more than 5 times in succesion. I have NEVER >done it twice in a tournament ! There is something diffent about knowing that >your opponent is just waiting to pounce on your smallest mistake. Playing in >the comfort of your home with nobody else around is a nice "advantage" for most >people. Especially when nothing is really on the line. You have to be able to >perform under real tournament conditions to claim the prize. >Jim (Choke-up artist) That is quite true. The flip side, however, that if I (USCF 2100) had t play a computer (Probably 2600) in a tournament (unlikely I know), I would have *no* pressure on me; nobody would have any expectations of victory. However, the drawing methods I frequently use against computers (tossing a pawn to reach a B of opposite color ending, giving it huge amounts of space in return for a protected passer, etc) are very easy to implement in even tournament play. Modern programs are *very* hard to beat if you are a mere NM or strong expert. But they are *dramatically* easier to draw than a human GM is. I feel very confident that I could play a very good program (Tiger, Fritz, Crafty, etc) on good hardware, and have at least a 25% chance of getting a draw. Against an equivalent human GM, I would estimate the likelihood to be no more than 10% (Although I have drawn a good GM in a tournament before, I have lost to several others). This is the issue that I focus on in these 'Computer = GM' discussions. of course they *can* play like GMs....when *playing* GMs....but they can also play like strong NM/FMs when playing weaker players intent on drawing them. So I really don't know how to estimate their 'true' strength. If I remember Elo's book correctly, he designed his system so that if a player played a different sub-group of the rating pool, that person's rating should stay pretty much the same. With humans, this is usually the case (i.e., when I play in open events against human masters, I usually end up with a performance rating of 2150 or so. When I play in local tournaments against 1800s and 1900s, I usually end up with performance ratings around 2100...not that big a difference. But Computers don't seem to behave like this. If I put Tiger in a PIII/1Ghz in the US Championship, it would likely perform at a level of 2550-2650 FIDE. But if I put the same program on the same box into the Expert/NM section it most likely would have enough draws against 2100s to drop it's performance rating to 2300-2450. So can we honestly say that a program is 'GM strength' if it plays like a GM *against* GMs, but also only plays like a FM against NMs? I don't see how we can. 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.