Author: Peter Hegger
Date: 11:52:26 04/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2002 at 10:12:25, Chris Carson wrote: >On April 23, 2002 at 09:51:42, Roy Eassa wrote: > >>On April 23, 2002 at 00:16:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 22, 2002 at 14:58:11, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>>On April 22, 2002 at 13:57:16, William H Rogers wrote: >>>> >>>>>I think that the new worlds champion will be announced just as soon as the top >>>>>human plays a round robin game against the top computer chess programs. I think >>>>>that there should be at least 4 to 6 games with each opponent. When this is >>>>>done, then I think people will see a computer holding the worlds championship >>>>>for the first time( not counting Big Blue). As to when this will happen, it is >>>>>up to the humans, ie. today, tommorow, or 10 years from now. >>>>>Bill >>>> >>>>Part of the reason humans (the _best_ humans) lose to programs is because they >>>>don't have experience playing against them. Computers are still very strong, and >>>>by no means will they ever again be "easy" wins for top players, but if GM's >>>>studied computer play like they would normally prepare for a match with a human, >>>>they would fair better. How much better is hard to say. Maybe they would win 5-3 >>>>or 5.5-2.5 in an 8 game match. I don't think a blowout would be common, except >>>>perhaps in the case of Kramnik-Fritz since Kramnik will have had all the time in >>>>the world to prepare and test the program. >>>> >>>>And you mean Deep Blue, not Big Blue :) >>>> >>>>Russell >>> >>> >>>I have used the term "computer shock" for 20+ years. It still fits. Computers >>>are not regular tournament participants, which means that meeting one under >>>such conditions is a "shock". And generally the human does far worse the >>>first time around than the second... >>> >>>This will continue until computers are pervasive in chess. They aren't, >>>yet... >> >> >>Good way to describe this effect. Humans do seem to substantially underperform >>(play below their true strengths) against computers at first, leading to >>artifically high initial ratings for the machines. > >A really good example of this is the last Rebel GM match where the 2700 GM >(anti-computer expert) played 100 preparation games and scored 2-2 (even) with >Rebel. Another example that comes to mind is Rebel's 3.5-2.5 victory over anti- computer expert extrordinaire, Van Der Wiel.
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.