Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:22:37 07/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1998 at 15:10:49, Don Dailey wrote: >On July 24, 1998 at 04:58:05, Joe McCarron wrote: > >>On July 23, 1998 at 20:29:44, Don Dailey wrote: >> >>>On July 23, 1998 at 18:42:42, Joe McCarron wrote: >>> >>>>Just today I told someone about this Anand rebel match. The fact that rebel is >>>>a program that most people can buy and it was on a computer that was (or at >>>>least soon will be)available to your average consumer is what made me so >>>>interested in the match. This is exactly what my friend think the match was >>>>insignificant. After all, this is a program thats freely available you should >>>>know what the results will be. Of course he's right. Theres no excuse. The >>>>reason we don't know is humans are afraid of computers. >>>>The way I view it Ed and other programers (with the glaring exception of IBM) >>>>have made there programs freely available. Programers have told the world that >>>>they will take on all comers any time any day. So the blame is on the humans. >>>>So just like I resolve doubts in favor of Paul Morphy that he would have beat >>>>Staunton if they played I resolve doubts in favor of computers that they are >>>>GM's. *Any* time a *any* GM would want to set us straight they could just >play >>>>rebel in a 20 game match at whatever time controls they want. I just find it >>>>hard to believe this has never been done. Why the mystery and beating around >>>>the bush??? >>>>-Joe >>> >>>It's not so simple Joe. I agree about the reluctance of humans to >>>play but there are some other issues. First of all, grandmasters >>>rarely play serious games without getting payed money, after all they >>>are the best at what they do. I don't fault them for this. I have a >>>feeling it would be easy to get serious matches as long as the price >>>was right. They only other way is to play in tournaments, but computers >>>are not generally welcome. I am on the side of humans on this one. >>>People always expect me to be "pro-computer" on this issue but my >>>program has been in a few of these tournaments and it's invariably >>>disruptive and quite often a small group of humans get quite upset. >>>In my opinion they have a right to expect to play humans. >> >>I agree that it might be disruptive at a tournament. But the games don't need >>to be at a tournament. I have fritz5 and can play it at home and post the >>results of my my games on a newsgroup etc. Again my point is they can play it >>*any* time *any* place. > >I wasn't trying to be confrontational Joe. I'm simply pointing out >that humans may not want to play computers, whether at tournaments >or not. You seem to be implying that they have some kind of obligation >to play them and I simply disagree. > I'm somewhere between the two of you here. The first time I encountered this was at the 1981 Mississippi tournament I mentioned. That was back in the early days of "sign a list before the tournament and you *never* have to play the computer, even if it affects the outcome of the tournament." The only problem was, you didn't have to sign *before* the tournament, you could sign *during* the tournament. When everyone heard we were on a supercomputer, before round 1, there was a mad rush to sign. After watching us smash player after player, the list kept growing. I voiced the opinion that "this is a stupid procedure, because we are *obviously* going to be near the top, and if the top players don't play us, the tournament is going to be screwed up." "nah, said the TD, you'll never make it through 3-4 rounds without getting killed so it won't be a problem." We did make it thru all 5 rounds, it was a problem. Later I asked "why does everyone not want to play the computer?" The answer was "because we don't have a chance to beat it." I then asked "who'd like to play Fischer or Karpov in this tournament?" Everyone raised their hands. I then asked "Why, you don't have a chance of beating either of them either." There was a moments bewildered silence, then "but they are world champions.." I *never* did get it. If a computer is that strong, I'd not object, if I were good enough to be paired against it. Somehow the "point" eludes me completely. > >>How much money does your average GM make at the average tournament he goes to? >>If that is all they would charge for a match with a computer than you are right. >>But if they insist on charging much more than they would make at a good >>tournament then I fault them very much. > >I don't. It's a simple contract, who says they even have to play? If >they don't want to play for $1000 but will for $10000 that is their >decision. By the same token we can decide how much we pay them. They >could be having the same conversation about us, saying to each other, >those guy's are being very unreasonable for paying us less than x amount, >when we should be rightfully getting this other amount. >(wasn't Staunton making some quibbles >>about the purse with his anticipated game with Morphy? Next thing you knwo GM's >>will be saying they need some time to review their openings and endings. :) In >>the mean time the programs will be sitting on their shelves ready to play any >>time any place.) > >Unfortunately, it's still an honor to play a great player if he is human, >but strong computer masters are a dime a dozen! That's why we have >to pay them for the privilege, even if our programs are equal. > It's not a matter of "computer masters are a dime a dozen." In 1981 there were exactly two computers with USCF ratings > 2200, Cray Blitz and Belle. Everyone else was in the 1500-1600 range except for chess 4.x which was around 1900-2000 on the CDC Cyber 176. So we were a definite rarity back then, but the same opinion was still there: We'd love to play a human master, but please, keep the computer masters away. Ken had the same problems at tournaments he went to... >Which is why it's most fair if a third party pays the winner. > > >>>Another issue is that the top players are under no obligation to >>>prove themselves, they have established long ago that they are >>>the dominant players, not our computers. So it is us that have >>>to take the initiative to make matches happen if we can, they >>>have no obligation of any kind to do this. >> >>"Long ago" computers were 286's with 2 meg of ram. So saying they proved it >>long ago is like me telling Gary Kasparov 'remember when I played you when you >>were 6 years old and beat you 3-0!?! Now you have to pay me a million dollars >>if you want a rematch'(BTW I never did play him when he was 6.) Who would I be >>kidding? > >You completely missed my point, sorry I didn't explain it better. I'll >use your example to better illustrate my point since it is perfect for >this. It's not about who won the last game, but about who is the one >who needs to prove himself. In your example, Kasparov will laugh at >you and both of you will know that YOU are the one who needs to prove >himself. But for arguments sake, let's say Kasparov NEVER FORGOT >this stinging loss and has been dwelling on it all these years. IF >he felt the need to avenge his loss and "prove himself" (which of >course is silly) then your example works, you might very well hold >out for a lot of money. Do you see the difference? He is comming >to you, not the other way around. In reality we know that if you >wanted to play a match with Kasparov, you would have to come to HIM >and I'm sure you would have to come up with some serious money! > >In your post, you are looking at things backwards. We are "chomping >at the bit" to prove ourselves, they are not. We cannot sit back >and say what is wrong with them for not seeking us out. > that's the way it has *always* been in fact... "blitz" was a USCF member around 1975 or so, and even then it was looked upon with suspicion, even though it was clearly a 1500-1600 player. As it got better, the suspicion got higher. At 1500, most tournament players were rated higher than it. At 2200 it was better than all but a few at any given tournament. Which means everyone below it suddenly is anti-computer. We've gotten so good, that hardly anyone is left above us, just a few hundred GMs and and a few IMs. Which means we become less and less welcome by more and more people... >This could of course change at some point. If it started to become >clear that we were better, then a few might become highly motivated >to seek US out instead of the other way around. But right now I >don't think that is the situation. > I used to think this, but don't any longer. Most humans view chess as a human endeavor... and frown upon silicon intrusion... >- Don >
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.