Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:56:46 03/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2003 at 20:03:15, Peter Berger wrote: >On March 23, 2003 at 12:06:23, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 23, 2003 at 11:51:52, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>On March 23, 2003 at 04:17:22, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>On March 23, 2003 at 02:38:31, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 22, 2003 at 23:15:19, Lyn Harper wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 22, 2003 at 13:17:48, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On March 22, 2003 at 13:16:46, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>><snipped> >>>>>>>>The only reason to make them weaker relative to humans is simply to change the >>>>>>>>rules of the game. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Should be the only way to nake them... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>I see that I made a mistake in my correction (make and not nake) >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But is'nt this just inventing ways to delay the inevitable? The programs are >>>>>>just getting stronger while the humans are'nt. Accept it. >>>>> >>>>>If you change the rules humans will be relatively stronger and after the delay >>>>>you can change the rules again. >>>>> >>>>>I think that humans also can learn to be stronger in normal chess thanks to >>>>>computers. >>>>> >>>>>I agree that in every static game computers are going to win after enough time >>>>>and this is exactly the reason to change the rules. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>So we have a game the rules of which are that humans must be able to >>>>win....bizarre. >>>> >>>> >>>>Frank >>> >>>Why is that bizarre? It's just a little early now but some day some kind of >>>rules will be needed to make man-machine matches interesting as the silicon will >>>be too strong for equal competition. >>> >>>Obviously there are two ways this can be done: >>> >>>a.) limitting the computer power and ressources >>> >>>I like this approach most. Will there be a day when a program on a current >>>Pocket PC or Palm can compete with human top players? That's a very long way to >>>go still. >>> >>>b.) adapting the rules >>> >>>Maybe the easy and old approach of playing with uneven material is nicest here. >>>That's a little similar to Go. How long until a program can win against top >>>players with a knight less? >> >>Never >> >>I believe that even god is going to lose against the top humans >>and even against 2600 GM's with a knight odd. >> >>Uri > >I think you underestimate God - he would have a few additional advantages, for >example he could read his opponents' minds. > >Seriously - I don't think knight's odds is something that can't be overcome with >extremely deep searches at some time. Or if it is, make it one or two pawns >instead. > >This year Mr Ingo Althoefer did a few experiments playing chessprogrammers and a >few strong players in odds games with the help of an engine. He seemed to do OK. >Maybe like 2100 level. > >That's were chessengines were 25 years ago, too. I don't see the principle >difference. > >Let's assume we played a corresponcence game and I gave you knights odds but >earned the right to use a chessengine where you could only use your own mind. I >would be pretty confident to win or at least I bet you would have a very hard >time. I believe that I can win a game in these conditions. I do not think that it going to be easy but I am not a GM. I also think that knight is equal more elo at the high level and even at 2000 level at 120/40 it equals many hundreds of elo. Computer may have chances against GM's with knight odd only in blitz. 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.