Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:55:53 07/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 1998 at 21:22:57, Mark Young wrote: >On July 25, 1998 at 19:55:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 25, 1998 at 11:04:40, Shaun Graham wrote: >> >>>"At 40/2 they are not GM yet, but they are pretty close, and if the human GM >>>doesn't take care, he can get rolled up pretty badly, since the computer is >>>going to be quite attentive toward the least tactical mistake, where another >>>human might miss it entirely. The better they (the programs) get, the harder >>>it will be to attract human GM players to play them." >>> >>>(A quote from Robert Hyatt) >>> >>> He says "pretty close" now, that's not what my memory recalls him saying. >> >>Depends on your definition of "pretty close". I have said "FIDE 2400" for quite >>a while now. Which is still a ways from the minimum 2500 needed for a GM title. >> >I think there might be some good reasons to reassess the 2400 rating as a high >mark. I know computer programs have holes in the way they play, but I went back >and looked at how some other Grandmaster have done in matches with GM Anand. >Anand crushed them; they were lucky to get a couple of draws in a six game >match. I don t see any 2400 rated player-giving Anand as much trouble as Rebel >10 gave Anand. Then you take the match Hiarcs 6 played against an IM. The >computer won and it was at 40 moves in 2 hours. If you knocked me on the head >with a hammer so I did not know that it was a computer playing Anand. I would >have to say that Rebel 10 was a Grandmaster. Is it possible that we are being to >conservative in our rating assessment? Because we look too much at the holes in >the computers play and forget about the other things that it does so well that >counter balance its weaknesses. > If you watch Crafty, Ferret, WchessX, ZarkovX, and any other good program that plays a lot on ICC, you'll begin to get the feeling that they are surviving more by their tactical acuity than by positional understanding. Yes they all find places where their positional skill is quite surprising. But they all also find places where they have no clue at all about what is going down. But even when their positional knowledge fails them, their extreme tactical skills make them formidable. At least at shorter time controls... here is one reason. Even after reaching a superior position, there are two cases for the opponent: (1) humans often fold up and make a mistake, followed by another mistake, followed by resigning. I've seen this happen so many times against Kasparov that it isn't funny. (2) the computer is very much like trying to move a brick wall with just your legs. You might make progress, but it won't suddenly collapse and die. What this means is that playing carbon and playing silicon are different things, and the methodology for running over one is not necessarily the same as the methodology needed to run over the other. What this means is that you work like hell to win a pawn, but then you can *not* relax for a moment until the game is over, because the "calculator" is always looking on carefully and will spot any weak move. We've seen many GM games where a GM overlooks a simple mate when he is winning, because his opponent is so caught up in defending he forgets about what *he* might do himself. A computer will roll you if you give it a crack. Imagine playing a weak IM, but one that simply doesn't make short-term tactical mistakes of *any kind*. That's how I characterize a computer. Positionally maybe a weak IM, but the tactics carries it beyond that. But tactics alone won't get you into the GM ranks. > > >> >>>Regardless of that however, what does it mean? "Pretty close" to a Shirov? >>>Certainly not. "Pretty close" to a Kaidanov or Gulko? Hmm almost certainly >>>not. "Pretty close" to a Kempinsky, Groszpeter, or Morovic(GMs you have >>>probably never heard of)? Well the truth is that these latter GM's would have >>>(probably) been toasted by Rebel 10 if they had played it 2 40/2 games. >>>Regardless of what statistics say how often would you think Anand fails to beat >>>2500 rated GMs? And i do mean beat them handily, not a situation where everyone >>>is wondering who is winning as occurred during the Anand Rebel 40/2 games. Now >>>of course the draw that Rebel got could have been luck, it could have even been >>>the 1 out of however many games a "maybe weak IM"(Robert Hyatt, 1998) might have >>>been statistically expected to draw in a match with a GM of Anand's caliber(more >>>games are certainly needed to be definitive). Anands caliber bieng World >>>Champion caliber. To illustrate what i mean by this(World Champion Caliber) i >>>will quote Kasparov reffering to another GM. >>> >>>"I had a big discussion with my seconds over lunch about whether to play my new >>>plan against Shaked. I would have preferred to see another player's face across >>>the board after 13...Rd8--not necessarily Karpov, >>>but ANY STRONG PLAYER. IT WAS lIKE USING AN ATOM BOMB TO SHOOT BIRDS."(Inside >>>chess magazine) >>> >>> The so called bird, that Kasparov is reffering to is none other than the >>>current WORLD junior champion GM Tal Shaked. Perhaps Kasparov is using a bit >>>of bravado(??). Hmm nope Shaked stood no chance whatsoever. Yet we have just >>>been witness to a match where a program (Rebel 10), first drew a game, and then >>>put up an amazingly staunch resistance, so staunch in fact that Anand famous for >>>his speed used as much time as his computer opponent. When we see such a >>>performance against a player of "WORLD CHAMPION CALIBER" by said program we can >>>definitely feel safe in positing the likelyhood that programs such as >>>rebel10/Fritz5 are indeed GM strength. Especially when we can feel certain that >>>if we took the weakest GM and paired him against the mighty Anand the outcome of >>>the match would have indeed in all likelyhood been far far more clear. >> >> >>You can stick with your opinion, of course. And I will stick with mine. I >>simply see too many holes at present, in the micros. They have their moments, >>and Rebel certainly played well. But I'd still bet on Anand, after giving him >>a few games to see how it plays.... >> >>Unless you talk about fast games. I just did some history tests on ICC and >>found that, for example, that Crafty is winning 3 of every 4 games from GM >>Dlugy... that means Dlugy+200 for a rating estimate. But that is blitz. I >>have similar results against Yasser, Roman, etc... >> >>But 40/2 is something else... and I watched an IM (A pretty good one) rip >>Rebel 9 badly in two games today. I don't know what kind of hardware, however, >>as the rebel user was logged on as a guest. But this particular IM is quite >>good against computers... I have been playing another IM some long games on >>ICC and am breaking even pretty much, although I (Crafty) can totally shred him >>at 5 3 and so forth...
This page took 0.01 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.