Author: Albert Silver
Date: 09:00:05 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 10:15:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
Absolutely astonishing that you can bring this up again, though here in CCC.
This was debated in great detail in RGCC last year with the most active
proponents being Robert Hyatt and myself on one side and Chris Whittington, Phil
something and yourself on the other. As I recall, every single argument of yours
was shown to be fallacious and this was with all the twisting and turning you
customarily do. Eventually, despite my NEVER having been less than courteous in
the discussions, I became the object of constant abuse from the both of you.
Chris W. declared I was drunk or on drugs, yet found it impossible to actually
refute any of my arguments. Arguments that were crystal clear to others
following the discussion BTW. Instead all I got were phrases along the lines of:
"I can't be bothered to explain, look it up", etc. You declared me obtuse and
neurologically deficient on many occasions, and grew increasingly condescending
and arrogant as time went by, at which point I left you to debate it with
yourself. I believe Bob followed suit very shortly after.
My memory of the arguments proposed on both sides is just fine and if you wish I
can dredge them up and summarize them for you, however I will not debate them
any further. I would also urge any others wishing to do so, to search Google's
Usenet (http://google.groups.com) first.
Albert
>Excuse me if I ask a question already answered a hundred times or more in this
>forum. Could someone explain, perhaps in understandable numbers of percentages,
>how important the strength of the engine is in chess programs, are there
>differences between commercial and amateur programs?
>
>Let me demonstrate a little thought experiment. If I would gauge (in 2002) the
>actually most known chess programs against say 1000 human chess players (first
>step) to get some insight into the Elo numbers, I would expect that the top
>programs would at best get Elo performances of 2200 - 2350, if I let the engines
>play without books and implemented book-like tricks. Now, if I'd do some comp vs
>comp over a period of a decade or such, I'd expect the leading engines to reach
>astonishing Elo of 2600, maybe 2700! So, what we had found were two things:
>without books engines would be outplayed by better human chessplayers but
>through imbreeding processes the Elo of the engines could still reach Super-GM
>Elos. Now, at that moment I'd organize show matches between the engines and
>former or actual champions, with a guaranteed sum of say 1 million of USD for
>the champion no matter if he'd looses or wins. What would be the next step?
>World champion the engine XY on 1 million GHz?
>
>A fair copy of this:
>
>Enough interest=money provided naked engines of chess programs would be
>dispersed by human players from the quality above expert status. Humans will
>learn to pay attention to the difficulty of tactical play resulting from the
>overall depth of 6 to 10 moves at maximum. The rest of the time will be used to
>discover typical exploitations of horizon. Humans will adapt to a completely
>different chess. New patterns/ algorithms will be developped for early
>spottings. Depending of the specific engine 'early' could well be a whole book
>with chapters about "Winning from move 1 on against FRITZ 25" or "How to survive
>in a fortress against JUNIOR 12b" etc.
>
>Still, we had the programs with books.
>
>Now, for these programs we need only players from a level of Elo 2500 upwards.
>Eidetical talents are absolutely required! Then we can repeat the whole
>procedures from above.
>
>Still, we had the Elo numbers due to our imbreeding technology.
>
>In pure comp vs comp matches we could still fabricate magic Elos (We let older
>programs play on older hardware vs new programs on new and stronger hardware!).
>Then we make some show events with tricky programs, with newest books doctored
>until the morning of the first game. The results affirmate by far our Elo
>numbers by imbreeding.
>
>
>But back to the question, what is the real strength of the chess engine? How
>would you measure it? When will the engine itself begin to reflect its 'chess'?
>How many years from now it will take to develop a real chessplaying robot who
>could participate in human tournaments completely on his own? Buying new books
>he reads, asking collegues for some information about this or that,
>differentiating between truth, lies and irony. ;-)
>
>Rolf Tueschen
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.