Author: Hristo
Date: 07:19:02 04/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2002 at 09:33:32, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On April 10, 2002 at 08:58:36, Hristo wrote: > >>What is that supposed to mean? >>The entire "conjecture" that DB is faster and therefore a lot better than the >>rest of the COMPS is somehow not convincing. If nothing else the following >>problem arises ... >>Lets use ELO points as the relative chess strength for COMPS. >>If 2*nps = +100 ELO points. >>The modern computer, at 1M nps, are 200 times slower than DB. >>DB performed, during the match with Kasparov, at ELO 2900. (not sure about that) >>Can we acertain that the relative strength of the computers today is between >>2000-2200 ELO points? If, at the same time, we accept that the eval used by DB >>was superior to all modern COMPS, then the relative strength of the modern >>computers should be even lower. Is this correct? >>Anyway, the information is so scarce and inconclusive that making any >>conjectures based on this information is dubious and fraudulent. Dr. Hyatt >>desrves a lot(!) of recognition, but when it comes to chess (the game) I would >>rather listen to Kramnik. > >You miss the point I was trying to make, I think. I was talking about the actual >moves played and their significance, not speculating on the importance of >knowledge or speed differences. The only problem I commented on was the >importance of Kramnik's discovery, ie. an unknown number of objectively better >moves found by Fritz compared to Deep Blue. That doesn't prove anything at all >IMO. Not only is it possible to question the term "objectively better", even >when he's the WC and 2nd ranked player in the World, but also the actual >importance of the method. At least in the sense of establishing a strength >evaluation. > Perhaps I missed something. Sorry. ;-) I agree with you that comparing individual moves is not a reliable method of determining strength! However it is the only thing we've got. Kramnik's discovery is a better guess than you and I can make. If we try to be scientific and disregard the moves that were made and insted choose some other property of the COMPS (engines), then we run into the problem(s) that I mensioned before. Kramnik's opinion is _highly_ subjective and, yet, it is better than anything I have heard so far. What method would you use to determine the strength of DB compared to todays COMPS? >Finding a better move here and there doesn't mean that Fritz wouldn't do much >worse, because it doesn't tell you about the likelihood of comitting blunders or >reaching similar positions, where it excels. Of course it doesn't tell you the >opposite either. It might do better, it might not. Kramnik's investigation >doesn't prove anything either way. Again, I agree with you! It doesn't! Nothing else proves the strength of DB either ... other than the few games played. :-) > It's like determining the strength of a >program based on a secret testsuit. An example would be to find a game, or >several games, where one side played a number of "objectively better" moves and >testing a certain number of engines. Would the best "move solver" be the >strongest program? I don't think you can make that conclusion. > I'm accepting the conclusion of the World Champion since nothing else makes better sense. >BTW, even as a complete patzer, I'm able to find objectively better moves than >2200 ELO engines. Especially in the endgame. Does that make me a 2200+ ELO >player? Not in a million years :-)). > Yeah ... I might win against you sometime which would make 2300+ ELO ... and I woke up. ;-) Regards, hristo >Regards, >Mogens
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.