Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:17:54 02/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 03:23:40, Ed Schröder wrote: >When reorganizing my mailboxes I came across and old posting of 2000, here is: > >========================================================================== >Posted by Enrique Irazoqui on July 17, 2000 at 07:33:41: > >In Reply to: Re: About head or tail (was Upon scientific truth - the nature of >informati posted by Ed Schröder on July 17, 2000 at 07:15:45: > >On July 17, 2000 at 07:15:45, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>I know. Prove me wrong. :-) >> >>How about a 10 game match....? > >What for? What a waste... Comp-comp won't prove a thing no matter how many games >you play. Let's take a quick look: > >1 - Programs are helpless against anti-computer strategy, like Fritz in >Frankfurt and Junior in Dortmund. Their performance is inversely proportional to >human awareness of this shortcoming, and search alone won't solve the problem, >or at least it won't solve it before we all become very bald. Oh yes: in >comp-comp search is everything. > >2 - Programs are essentially polite social beings: they behave like GMs amongst >GMs, like 2300s amongst 2300s. For instance, look at Junior's performance in >Dortmund and in the Israeli league. > >3 - If program A has extra code to avoid closed positions and program B does >not, comp-comp won't show the difference as an advantage for A. If B is a faster >searcher, the extra code will harm A when playing B. > >4 - Comp-comp games show a partial and rather uninteresting picture, their >results don't necessarily correlate to human-comp and watching them can even >become a threat to one's mental health. > >Now go figure the statistic certainty of 10, 100 or 1000 comp-comp games. > >Enrique > >========================================================================== > >I think this was one of the best postings ever made in CCC. Point (2) states >more or less (and I deliberately put it strongly) that in Man vs Machine the elo >of the GM is irrelevant. > >If true it makes "little difference" to play a 2500, 2600, 2700 or even a 2800 >elo rated player if he (she) doesn't know how to play a computer. > >If the above is true and if GM van Wely doesn't know how to play a computer >Rebel should win, same as Fritz should beat Kramnik. > >I found my answer to Enrique in the CCC archive, a snip.... > >=========================================================================== > >Based on the data available I (for now) have the following opinion: > >#1. Humans have their own specific weaknesses: time control, making >tactical blunders, not winning a won position, overlooking small things, >nerves, pressure to win (or lose), being afraid for the tactical power of >the beast (Kasparov was full of it), going for an easy draw out of fear, >not being on their best each day in a long tournament. Humans are also >vulnerable for all kind of things that are happening in normal life that >could damage their concentration during a tournament (not feeling so well >up to dramatic happenings in their personal circumstances), the list is >endless. > >#2. Computers have only a FEW weaknesses and CCC is full of it. > >#3. The disadvantages as mentioned in (#1) are advantages for the computer >and IMO are often underestimated. Kasparov being totally confused after he >resigned in game-2 in a drawn position against DB combined with the fact he >in his mind started to question the integrity of the match. I am no >psychologist but it is quite well possible the match was over after game-2. >Imagine the opposite: in a comp-comp event you suspect your remote opponent >being a grandmaster. We have a example from the past and we know what it >did to the programmer in question when he was accused. Can you fully >concentrate on your next game in such cases? IMO Kasparov could not as the >poison in his mind was killing his creativity. > >#4. IMO it is very important who you are playing. I for instance prefer to >play Karpov (even in his better days) over Piket, Seirawan or v/d Wiel as >Karpov with all respect is not such a good players against comps. For >instance Rebel got 2 easy draws against Karpov 3 years ago on a slow PC >and Karpov was very happy to accept a draw proposal with a few minutes left >on the clock Rebel being a pawn up. If you look at these games Karpov just >plays as Karpov which favors the computer, Rebel never was in trouble. I >even dare to mention Kasparov not able to give the computer the treatment >it deserves, the anti-computer strategy. IMO he is not able at least until >now. He tries (see the unorthodox openings after game-2) but he did not >manage. Note that Kasparov also lost a mini match against Genius some 4-5 >years ago. Kasparov won later 1.5-.5 against the same program on better hardware and the games were fast time control games. Kasparov believed at the time that he lost against Genius that he plays against Genius2 when he played against a later version. Uri
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.