Author: Chris Carson
Date: 13:17:18 04/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2002 at 15:29:29, Claudio A. Amorim wrote: >On April 22, 2002 at 10:04:47, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On April 22, 2002 at 09:17:57, K. Burcham wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>most here have witnessed the different levels of program and hardware strength >>>increases over the years. >>>the programs used to be looked at as a toy, or a novelty. >>>then the programs could beat a master. >>>then the programs could beat a GM but with lots of losses. >>>it seems now we are witnessing another phase of this growth. >>>there are more GM losing to programs, but the difference is >>> that the GM cannot win like he used to. now it seems we are >>>going through a period of 4 out of 5, GM vs program games, being >>>drawn. >>> >>>i feel that when someone can play 30 games against a variety >>>of GM's, and draw almost every game, and occasionally win one, >>>it would be very difficult for me to not call him a GM. >>> >>>also we know what the next logical level is here, once we get through >>>this draw era. i think all here will witness the evolution of this >>>next level, less draws and more wins. i think in this next level, >>>it will become acceptable to all, to address programs as GM level. >>>kburcham >> >>There are a few flaws here, I think. >> >>If a GM wants a draw against a computer, he gets the draw. Period. Taking >>chances, and trying to get a win, is where GMs usually lose. >> >>This does NOT work against other GMs. I can't remember his name, but I once >>heard a GM say, about Fischer, "I only wanted a draw, and yet, I resign in 20. >>Everytime, the same thing. Play for draw, resign a few moves later." >> >>Therefore, I think the GM kind of "controls" the computer. Think about this; >> >>If Smirin wins, he gets a lot of money. If he draws, he gets a lot of money. >>If he loses, he gets some money. >> >>He's going to get the easy wins, and draw every other game. Not because he >>can't win, but because he cannot afford to lose. You have to take risks to win >>against a computer, and those risks probably aren't worth $5k, or something to >>that effect. >> >>Get a 2700 Elo GM, and tell him, "Beat this computer, get $1M. Draw or lose, >>you get nothing." And you'll see a GM smash a computer. You have to make the >>prize money ridiculous though, in order to make up for that fact that if he >>loses, he doesn't get jack. >> >>I personally think that computers are, at their best, around 2600 Elo. Which of >>course, is GM strength. But I also think that #1 - #5 in the world would make >>these programs look silly. But you'll probably never see that. :( > > >Perhaps matters will be set once for all when someone comes up with a chess >computer that loves money as much as some top GMs do ;) The old DEC systems I worked on 20 years ago loved money, the prompt was a $. ;)
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.