Author: Dana Turnmire
Date: 10:04:30 10/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2002 at 13:01:18, Mark Young wrote: >On October 19, 2002 at 12:46:34, Dana Turnmire wrote: > >>On October 19, 2002 at 11:23:34, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>A very disappointing end to the match as a draw was accepted much too early by >>>the Fritz team with this type of endgame structure. There was a good chance to >>>gain the advantage for black in this endgame with little risk of losing. >>> >>>The GM Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz match has put to rest some questions, or maybe >>>not! >>> >>>1. Do PC programs play at a GM Level? – Clearly Yes. >>> >>>2. Can PC programs win against a well prepared and motivated Grand Master? – >>>Yes. That still doesn't answer the question of how well a computer program would do against a top grandmaster with no opening book. >>> >>>3. Is it easy to force the PC programs into unfavorable position were the human >>>has the advantage when the human player does not control the opening book? – No. >>> >>>4. Was Deep Blue 1997 was much stronger then Deep Fritz and other PC programs? - >>>No. >>> >>>5. Can a PC program compete with the worlds best chess players even when it is >>>for sale to the public and everyone has a chance to play against the program? – >>>Yes. >>> >>>6. Is it easy to trick a PC program with anti-computer tactics? – No. >>> >>>7. Do computer programs have too many weaknesses in there play to let them be >>>competitive with the worlds best chess players. Clearly No. >>> >>>8. Will it take another 10 years before anyone can have a computer that plays as >>>well as Deep Blue? No. >>> >>>9. Do computers need to search many millions of nodes per second as Deep Blue >>>did to be competitive with the world’s best player(s)? – No. >> >>How well would a computer program do against the top grandmasters if it had to >>generate its own moves from start to finish without human intervention in the >>opening play? Uri Blass said he didn't put much stock in openings books. I'm a >>little surprised by that statment since it seems everyone puts such emphasis on >>what opening book should be used etc. >> >>Humans have to learn and memorize the best lines for openings. Why should >>humans play that part of the game for the computer? I understand the purpose >>for opening books but to find out if computers are really superior to humans >>shouldn't the computers have to learn and memorize the best opening moves just >>as all humans have to do? > >What good human player has not been programmed with opening theory just as the >computer is programmed with opening theory. The human does no thinking in the >opening other then to try a choose favorable lines just as the computer does. > >What human generates his own moves for the start??? None unless you have never >seen or played chess before. > >One way to test this is to play shuffle chess...I would suspect computers to be >far more superior at this form of chess then any human. > >Humans are far more lost then computers when you put them into a position they >have never seen before or have some sence how to play. > >I would bet Deep Fritz would beat any human in the world at a shuffle chess >match. I have got 25 cents to bet if you disagree.
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.