Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:12:52 01/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 15:42:14, Matthew Hull wrote: >[snip] >> >>A couple of things here. 1. I _am_ rethinking my "position". But I am >>beginning >>to lean toward a _totally_ different conclusion than you might expect. Namely >>that >>"super-gm players" are _not_ really super-gm, they are simply able to >>bluff/out-think >>the lower-rated players. But when it comes to a computer, it can play multiple >>moves >>that are very ugly looking, but the human can't deliver the fatal blow, unless >>he does >>it _quickly_. The longer the game lasts, the greater the probability of an >>error by >>the human, and the game goes south. >> >>It is clear that for a general "chess skill" the computers are _nowhere_ near >>the top >>GM players. At least in terms of analyzing a position to produce the best move. >> But >>fatigue is a bigger issue that I would have guessed, as can be seen from the >>Kramnik >>match and now the Kasparov match. The human seems unable to keep up the mental >>sharpness needed for 3-4 hours at a time, and one daydream later the game is >>over, >>as we have seen. In game 1, Kasparov blew it out quickly before tiring. In >>game 2, >>he was in a worse position but found a deep tactical plan and out-thought the >>machine >>to a draw when he might have lost. In game 3, he created a good position that >>the machine >>had no idea about what was happening, but when there was no quick kill, "meat >>makes >>mistakes" returned to haunt him and turn a simple draw into a complicated loss >>that he >>didn't even want to fight to a conclusion... >> >>So I am perhaps redefining my definition of "GM strength" to have a "weariness" >>component. Since a computer has no such problem, the longer the game, and the >>more >>complex it is, even if the machine is losing, it will probably draw or win due >>to the >>"weariness factor". >> >>Something I had not considered before. >> >>We knew it was a factor for long matches... ie karpov vs kasparov for the WC >>years ago. >>But now it is becoming a problem in a _single_ game... that is interesting. >> >> >> >> >> >[snip] >> >>I think "the longer the run" the worse the human is going to do. Based on the >>"weariness factor" that has become more apparent. >> >> >> >>The programs will continue to get better. To the point that a GM can't even >>match wits >>with them on a single position to find the best move. But it seems that sitting >>down and >>playing for four hours, against a strong program, is getting to be more than the >>human >>mind can handle... > >It would seem that the fatigue advantage of programs should be worth an ELO >estimate on top of the programs estimated playing strength, at least in a >standard human match setting. > >Perhaps in a more relaxed setting, at a time of the human's own choosing, the >GMs perform better against programs. I am curious if there are GMs on ICC that >are able to consistently draw/win against Crafty at slow time controls. > >I know that I don't like to play serious games of chess on FICS unless I'm >feeling particularly alert, (usually after eating a half bag of carrots). > >Matt The best player I remember was "cptnbluebear". He had a good record (not winning, but he played mainly blitz) against _all_ computer programs on ICC. A _lot_ of draws, with an occasional win and a few losses thrown in. His draw percentage was almost ridiculous...
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.