Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 07:15:42 03/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 2003 at 09:53:49, Peter Berger wrote: >On March 24, 2003 at 09:42:49, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>On March 24, 2003 at 03:56:46, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>No way, >>I played three 5 min test blitz games against the top programs Fritz 8.008 and >>Shredder 7.04 (both playing without Nb1) on Athlon 2200+ with the black pieces >>and won three times in a row. >>My level is 2300 and I am really not especially strong in blitz. >>I claim to win at least 9:1 against any top program in a ten games match with >>these conditions. >>A Grandmaster should do even better. >>To win a correspondence game with a piece up is of course no problem at all. >> >>Michael >> > >This discussion is of course a little theoretical. It assumes > >a.) Some more time has passed and computers have become even stronger due to >hardware and software advances. It doesnt matter how strong the programs are. Experienced players know how to simplify a position in order to win easily in the endgame. > >b.) Programs are tuned for odds games. Currently it is not so difficult to win >against them because they are not programmed to do well in this setup. > >I think a program together with a clever operator (maybe 1800-2000) who has the >power to overrule might be at 2100 level in knights odds games currently - of I disagree >course I have no data to present but it should not be too far off. The clever >operator can be replaced with clever algorithms later. > >This is the same situation as with regular chess 20 years ago. > >I might be wrong but then make it two pawns odds - the actual material >difference is not so interesting. Two pawns odd is something completly different of course. In this case the player with computer help can always hope for a sucessful King attack or tactical traps. > >I also disagree when it is about correspondence compaired to blitz - I think it >is easier for humans to win odds games in the described setup in blitz now.
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.