Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 05:45:52 04/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2002 at 07:48:29, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 06, 2002 at 05:03:29, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>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. > >I think that if the programmer is allowed to change the program between the >games then the best programs with good hardware are going to win even against >2500 player. > >Uri Yes perhaps, but my personal opinion is that programs does make strange moves in some position, I would expect strong players to be able to take advantage of that. Changing the program a little bit proabably won't eliminate these strange moves. I believe that by systematic research one could, perhaps, prey on these faults. -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.