Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:34:44 02/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2003 at 18:16:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >I have made a white paper for a simple question: what is your opinion about >Crafty against humans in tournatment mode? I had a littler dispute with >Matthew... I said you never claimed GM status for either Crafty or other >commercials. Then Matthew said Crafty drew to some unknown (to me!) GM. Does >that mean you now say that also Crafty "is" GM in long tournament mode? > > First, a clarification. I have _never_ said that Crafty is a GM-level player at tournament time controls, namely 40 moves in 2 hours. I believe it is clearly a super-GM at blitz (game in 5 minutes). In fact, it is most likely a "ultimate-GM" if the time control is really game in 5 minutes, period. Second, I've come to modify my "GM level" a bit. I now suspect that in tournaments/matches that span multiple days, that most computer programs can play at a modest GM level. Not because they are positional GM players most of the time, and not because they are tactically superior to most GM players, but because of their consistency and stamina. They don't get tired and will play the last game of a consecutive 100 game match just as well as they play the first, perhaps even better when you factor in "book learning." Humans can't do that, as they get tired. So we have yet another "superiority" that the machines hold over us. Better memory than most (most but maybe not all). No fatigue. No distractability. Not subject to illnesses/bad days/etc. Perhaps those things _do_ make up for the positional/tactical shortcomings programs exhibit. >BTW - your report about such long distance marathon by Roman is what I said. >These guys don't need millions to get into fighting mode. Chess itself is >intersting enough. And yes, you are right, I do also know how the stamina topic >appeared in NY... > >Rolf Tueschen I have told this story before, but it is worthwhile to repeat. Roman used to take a lot of abuse on the chess servers (ICC in particular) as there are always the "morons" that want to aggravate when they can't play with a GM. As a result, he tried many different anonymous handles, but his rating would rise to the top of ICC, and he would be "uncovered." In talking on the phone one morning, I suggested that he think about losing games to low-rated players from time to time to suppress his rating and avoid discovery. He thought about it and said he was going to try. He was playing a FM friend of mine (one that I used to play a lot on ICC) and he made an intentional blunder dropping a rook. And he was looking to lose a big chunk of rating points. But as I watched, he started playing like a GM again, and built up an interesting attack, traded into a won endgame, and won. I asked "what in the hell were you thinking?" He chuckled (another phone call) and said "after intentionally dropping the rook for a pawn, I sort of got into the game and starting playing to see if I could make up for being a rook down." The point was that it is _hard_ for these guys to lose intentionally, although I have no idea how hard it would be if there was a million dollars or two that losing might make available to them next year... Some of them will play as best they can, whether it is blitz, standard, for first place or skittles on a chess server. But then of course, some won't...
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.