Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 02:03:29 04/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2002 at 02:49:55, Tanya Deborah wrote: >I agree with you Jerry. For me is very difficult to see some persons here that >say that computer programs are not play at 2500 elo. Some time ago, i ask the >same question to Grand Master Alexey Dreev. Dreev is a very good chess player >(up to 2600 elo) and he said me that chess programs are definitely better than >2500 elo. I said to him : Are you sure? Are you completely sure? Dreev said : I >am completely sure of that. > >I also ask the same question to ¨garompon¨ a very good GM in ICC. He also tell >me that computers are better than 2500 elo. > >And... I also ask to GMW Alexandra Kosteniuk. (I have a friendship with her and >we played some games some time ago) and she said me that computer programs are >very very strong now. When we talked, she was impressioned by the strenght of >Gambit Tiger 2. She said me, that she believed that Tiger was the best program >in the world. Since, 3 very good chess players told me that programs play better >than 2500 elo. > >Like you said, many people need to open the eyes, and understand that we are not >in 1990 anymore!!. > >Regards! >Tanya Deborah. I am one of those ignorant people that have some doubts about the true strength of the programs ;) Let me explain why... We all agree that in tactics nothing beats the computers, but how good are they at the positional level? I am sure the programs are way behind GMs in the static analysis of a position, because a programmer can only implement a bunch of static rules, and not the extensive knowledge and experience of a GM, often the programmer is not a very strong player himself, which doesn't exactly help either. This is a weakness in the programs, it is there but seems to be completely unexploited by most of the strong players. Exactly how strong does one needs to be to dissect a program completely is not clear, but I have heard of players with sub 2000 elo that has a great score against the programs. I think it can be done, GMs don't bother however. In all the matches GM vs computer we have seen lately, it's been 4-8 games, far too few for a complete dissection. To my knowledge programs today are mainly used for training, testing new openings and analysing games, that sort of thing. GMs are so used to playing humans, that they can't change their style when facing computers. Much time and energy is wasted by "thinking the wrong way". Remember that 99.9% of all the games they play are against humans, this is how they make their living, so bad habbits die hard I guess ;) I can be convinced that programs are *truly* above 2500, but I would have to see the programs enter hard and serious tournaments, where players would bother to find the weaknesses of their opponents. A 24 game match against a 2400 player, lots of money at stake, with one days rest between games and loads of strong GM analysis of the games during the match, I think the IM would win. For all practical purposes; playing random opponents on the internet and very short matches, I must agree that good programs today perform quite consistently above 2500. -S.
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.