Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:12:50 02/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2003 at 07:56:27, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On February 03, 2003 at 07:44:27, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 03, 2003 at 06:54:19, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >><snipped> >>> We all >>>know that a chain is only as strong as its weakest member. >> >>No >> >>I do not know it. > > >But this is not my fault then, Uri. It's simply knowledge. Very old knowledge. >If you have a giant to fight, then you look, where he's vulnerable, no??? And IF >his vulnerable spot or habit is constant, fixed, you start to treat exactly that >spot. You are not stupid and start on his strong, too strong, sides. A chain >will always break in its weakest member. Try it. Open a bit one member, so that >it's weak compared with the others, then you will see the result. > > > > >> >> Who could seriously >>>doubt that? But in computerchess that happens every day! People create a huge >>>confusion just to tweak the truth. And the truth is that because chess programs >>>have weaknesses even a 1700 player wouldn't have, they can't be - by definition >>>- Grandmaster or beware Super Grandmaster, they are not even International >>>Master - - - _IF_, and only if the mentioned groups would be in a serious >>>competition with such an _individual_ chess program and NOT always with a little >>>b >> >>By your theory computers cannot be even 1700 players but it is obvious that even >>better players who tried to play against them find that they have no chance >>because they canot get the positions that they understand better in the board or >>cannot aboid losing in position when they had the advantage. >> >>Without discussing the question about the exact level of computers I think that >>nobody will claim that computers are weaker than 1700 players. >> >>Uri > > >Unfortunately you snipped the major part of my message. So by definition you can >deal with the isolated snips and get false perceptions. > >Chess is not a one-dimensional action. So if 1700 is the weakness, that weakness >can't be explotated in 100% of the cases. So by force the Elo number will >increase. Because we were in consense that comps could well be 2700 tactically. I do not think that there is a consensus that comp are 2700 elo in tactics. I think that they are better than it in tactics. They never do tactical mistakes that 2700 players do also in human-human games. >So then you get my "estimated" 2400 in brutal competition. NOT in freaky show >events of course. > >Rolf Tueschen If you get from 2700 and 1700 average of 2400 then it means that the weakest chain is not dominant because 2400 is close to 2700 and not to 1700. My opinion is that it is not 2700 and 1700. In tactical positions computers perform like 3000 players. In most quiet position computer still perform like 2600-2800 players. In minority of the positions they perform like 1700 players or worse but it is hard to get them in practical games. computers already performed better than 2400 in the israeli league when the teams had the right to choose the human to play against the computer so they could choose humans who are relatively better against computers. Note that the software and hardware in the Israeli league was clearly worse than the software and hardware that is used against kasparov so I guess that Junior is clearly better than 2400 and I believe that it has at least 2700 level. Fritz had the bigger problems in the Israeli league because it was a more popular program so players prepared better against it(I know about one 2300 player who lost against Rebel and drew with Fritz and when I talked with him he admitted that he prepared against Fritz(something that he did not do against Rebel) Note that having the program give humans unfair advantage because they can play with the opponent when the opponent does not know about the games. I think that a fair match should allow the human to see games of the program but not to play with it before the match. Uri
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.