Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 08:42:28 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 07:34:46, Chris Carson wrote: >On March 26, 2002 at 04:33:14, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On March 26, 2002 at 00:35:44, Slater Wold wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>Whether or not I believe computers play GM strength chess is no matter here. >>>What matters is that people who have given 30+ years to this field have more of >>>a right to an opinion than you *EVER* will. >> >>I don't think that he is more entitled of an opinion than any other here. The >>difference between what Bob says and some other says is that he does it in a >>scientific way. >> >>Jerry (among others) seem to be very emotional about this matter (which is not >>necessarily a bad thing) and are so fixed on their opinion, no matter what. They >>don't have the patience to collect enough data points before making a claim. >>Also they're not very critical when coming up with examples which 'prove' their >>'obvious claim'. Ie Mr Ballicora pointed out some things why some/most GMs are >>not _that_ interested in playing against computers and therefore don't take it >>as seriously as playing vs humans. These things have to be taken into >>consideration, as well as many other things. >> >>Sadly, many (if not most) people fail to think that way and prefer the >>unscientific way. Computers showed very impressive performances over the years >>without us inventing new ones w/o enough data to support them. >> >>Sargon > >Careful about Science vs Faith. There is plenty of data points to prove the >strength of computers vs humans. I work in the field of human behavior research >for a living, no ties to the commercial programs and have studied Human vs >Computers for a long time (many years). I do not care what the strength of a >program is (higher or lower), however, they have proven themselves to be >significant and at a 2700+ level on hardware that can be purchased for under >$2,000. > >Humans must perform significantly better than the top programs over a period of >200 games or more before you can say with any scientific certainty that they are >below 2700. The programs have proven themselves to be very strong over a large >number of games at 40/2 (even more at faster time controls). These games must >be in open viewing competition, tournament rules with an arbitrator. > >Ofcourse everyone has the same entitlement to an opinion (based on faith). I >hope the GM's do better, I have faith that humans can adapt quicker than a >static program on static hw, however, science and a lot of data show that the >top programs are 2700+ and are very dangerous opponents and they will only get >better with improved s/w and faster hardware. There is nothing scientific about all this activity. Sorry. People might want to believe that things are done methodically but thery are not. Marketing dominates everything. Period. There are too many questions about the validity of the data and the extent of results you need to draw a conclusion. A simple statistical analysis is not enough since the conditions (when facing humans) are not the same game after game. Humans adapt, learn fast and they are fierce competitors when they have the right information and know how to use it. For instance, Kasparov met DB without knowing a bit about the program, very unfair conditions for a human. It would be interesting to do this imaginary experiment: train a human of 2650 strentgh in a way that nobody knows him/her. When it is ready with a great opening preparation directed against the rest of the GMs, let him/her play in the GM circuit A LOT. The elo performance in the second year will be MUCH lower than in the first year. The surprise effect is very big at these levels!! Once your peers identified your weaknesses, you're toast. This is a big advantage that the computers have now. Yes some programs are commercially available, but who GM is going to waste its time to test the program all by himself? Maybe some do. Who can certify that? Besides, do the GMs have all the fastest hardware available? I do not think so. People are quoting CT performance in Argentina. What I saw is that a couple of people drew easily with CT (slipak, one of them) and the rest were crunched going into tiger's mouth. If we repeat tournaments like this, will the people start to pick up slipak's strategy? I do not know. GM Yermolinsky says that blunders are a problem to humans in comp-humans games, but what is worse is the FEAR to blunder. That takes away the risk factor that you have to have to win a chess game a such levels. It is possible that humans are too afraid now to go for certain variations when they should not. He says that Kasparov did not play against DB, it was another player that looked like 2500. They might have to prepare differently to face monsters that they know little about. Let a program or a set of them (not available to the public), play in tournaments against GMs in regular conditions for a long time (two years) and see what happens. I have no idea what the result would be and anyone that gives an opinion, will be just that, an opinion. Unfortunately, we'll never see this. On the meantime, let's not mix it with the word science, it is waste of time. Just my opinion. Regards, Miguel
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.