Author: blass uri
Date: 22:27:50 08/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 05, 1998 at 14:45:47, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>It looks like playing against the world-top (even against 2800 players!) on >>>blitz and semi-blitz makes no sense anymore. Rebel played 4 blitz games >>>5:00 plus 5 Fischer seconds increment for each move which makes the >>>4 games actually 10:00 games. Then 2 games on 15:00. Result 4.5-1.5 >>>and believe me I never ever expected this to happen. Apparently you have >>>to play first to find out. > >>>The same counts for the 2 tournament games. Before the 2 games my >>>main fear was that Rebel would have been slaughtered, first positional >>>out-played, then slowly strangled, all in the well known Seirawan style at >>>Aegon but then even more effective :) > >>I feel the opposite - there's a long way to go for computers to match GMs in >>every aspect of the game (this is a different goal from beating GMs >>occasionally >>OTB, of course). In my opinion, we are still decades away from chess programs >>that really understand all kind of positions, all stages of the game with the >>quality of a good GM postmortem analysis. > >All true, but..... Since the early 80th I have always claimed no computer >will EVER be able to beat the human WC for reasons you describe above >and a few others reasons as well. > >After the last DB-GK match I have changed my mind. Chris W. in rgcc >said, "Maybe a 15-20 ply search with some anti-human stuff will do the >whole trick. I thought about it and I think he is right. > >This does not mean computers play more beautiful chess than humans. Humans >will always be more creative than a computer in respect to strategy. Computers >play simply a DIFFERENT style. I like the human style much better, much more >attractive to replay and study. > >Still the computer will win the race with his own unpredictable moves and style >and with all its unsolved weak points and I believe it will happen maybe sooner >then we expect. > >After the 3.5-2.5 victory of DB on GK I thought like many others, this is a >mistake and next re-match will set things right and PLEASE give Kasparov >what he asked for. > >I am not so sure anymore after the 2 tournament games Rebel played >against Anand. In both games Anand had troubles. I think Anand did not try to play in anti-computer style like GK. he chose therotical lines in the slow games and not unknown lines like 1.d3 or 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d6 > >I now think DB will win again against GK. And maybe it only takes 1 or 2 >years and a few Pc programs are able to do the same. I do not think DB will win again against GK. If we look in the games deeper blue-gary kasparov we can see that deeper blue won only because of stupid mistakes of kasparov(to resign in a draw position and to go for a line he was not prepared to play in the last game) I am sure DB programmers do not think like you. Uri > >Deep ply-depths and some smart software will do the trick no matter >all the things they do not understand yet. > >- Ed - > > >>As far as OTB play is concerned, there are numerous examples on ICC and >>elsewhere where "weaker" players (i.e. unrated or without FIDE title) almost >>match or even surpass Anand's performance against Rebel. > >>There's still a lot of work to do, a long way to go and hopefully much money >>for you to earn also in the next millenium ;-) > >>Certainly the task of implementing intelligent coaching features must not be >>forgotten since this is what the vast majority of customers needs most and >>hardly gets in any product nowadays. In so far you are perfectly right in >>giving this a higher priority than maybe 5 years ago where playing strength was >>even more insufficient than today. > >>Moritz
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.