Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 11:38:41 04/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 15, 2002 at 12:37:38, Chris Carson wrote: >On April 15, 2002 at 11:18:11, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On April 15, 2002 at 11:12:58, Roy Eassa wrote: >> >>> >>>The analysis of the Smirin win over Shredder (round 1) says that Shredder made 4 >>>"?" moves in a row: >>> >>>http://www.chessbase.com/events/games/2002_smirin/smirin.htm >>> >>>See moves 7, 8, 9, and 10. Also "?" on moves 12 and 15. >>> >>>Is this common for today's programs on fast PCs? >>> >>> >>>Shredder 6.02 scores quite well against the other top programs. Yet it seemed >>>to play well below GM level here. How can both of these things be true? >> >>I used Shredder 5 on a Dual AMD 1.4Ghz (much faster than the PC used in the >>Smirin game) against a GM on ICC in a 5 game match. >> >>He said that Shredder played like a 2700 GM in SOME positions, but mostly, like >>an 1800 patzer. >> >>I believe that's why people (like myself and Bob Hyatt) seem to think it'll be a >>while before a computer program on a PC will be deemed "GM strength". Because a >>GM plays like a GM 99.99% of the time, while a computer will play like a >>computer 99.99% of the time. GMs are always GM strength, that's what makes them >>GMs! > >This is not true. GM's put in below 2300 performances (in tournaments) all the >time. See The Week In Chess, any week and you will see GM's with low and high >results for their ratings. A rating is based on a number of games, it is not >based on making one or several good/bad moves in one game. If you look at >individual GM games, you will find plenty of stupid mistakes. If you can not >find them, let one of the top programs show it to you. > Which GM's? If they did it all the time as you suggest, then their _not_ GM's! > You can find stupid mistakes by 2800+ human players against computers (you >should do this yourself as a project, it is an easy task). It has happened, but not all that often....stupid mistakes are in my book blunders and 2800+ players, BTW there are only 2 don't blunder that often. > >You should admire how well the GM played/prepared for the computer, that may not >be the case in all the games. We shall see. I excpect he'll win the match. > >Rebel has made a 2700 player look stupid, Chess Tiger and Junior have also. The >few losses that the programs have are always cited as "proof" that programs are >stupid, that is not the case. The top programs win a lot more than they loose >(2 to 1). The programs are GM's, but they are not invincible, they do not play >perfect chess. GM's do not play 2500+ everytime they are at the board or even >over the course of a tournament. That is the nature of chess until it is >solved, GM's and programs will win some you loose some. Ratings increse if you >win more than you loose. > Whoa! Rebel by no means made Loek Van Wely look stupid! Quite honestly GM Van Wely out played Century 4 throwing at least a draw in game 1 with some winning chances. He also turned down the draw which would have secured winning the match rather than drawing it. Although Rebel did play like a GM in game 3 and it was a beautiful game. I believe Van Weley had drawing chances but it wasn't so simple to see OTB so like in a _actual_ GM vs GM game one side made some minor mistakes and lost control of the game...Van Wely in this case, and lost. 4 games is a very short match and can favour the machine in some cases, but in no way did this match make Van Wely look stupid, but it did help the image of Rebel naturally. Also it's not a _Fact_ "Etched in Stone" that todays programmes are GM's certainly not GM's in the 2700+ the upper end of grandmaster. Loek Van Weley taught a couple of lessons to Rebel when he had the White pieces! >> BTW it's *lose* not loose....I hate that mistake. *No Canadian would ever say loose...unless something is loose;) *Well I hope anyways;) Terry P.S. How many GM's do you test? I don't believe you know just how strong a GM is let alone a Super GM Class Player, 2600+ and you make claims if I'm not mistaken that programmes are as high as 2700+!! Which is simply untrue. These guys are pros...it is a profession, requiring years of dedication and study, like docters who specialize, it's no different and often takes more work then any docter in most fields, to do to reach the very top end in chess. It has been said it is 5x harder to become a World Chess Champion...(this of course is when the FIDE wasn't in the shape it's in today)...than to climb Mt. Everest! >>You can put wool on a wolf, but it's still not a sheep. ;)
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.