Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:12:27 06/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2003 at 03:33:57, georges alain wrote: >On June 18, 2003 at 08:34:51, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 18, 2003 at 08:24:43, georges alain wrote: >> >>>On June 18, 2003 at 06:19:26, James T. Walker wrote: >>> >>>>On June 18, 2003 at 05:51:38, georges alain wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 18, 2003 at 04:26:06, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 18, 2003 at 03:47:38, georges alain wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 18, 2003 at 02:06:35, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On June 18, 2003 at 01:46:51, Peter Hegger wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hello, >>>>>>>>>On very fast hardware with todays best programs, how would those programs fare >>>>>>>>>in a round robin correspondence tournament playing exclusively against postal >>>>>>>>>GMs? >>>>>>>>>Even if they couldn't yet compete at this level, how far off is the day when >>>>>>>>>they are bona fide postal GM strength? >>>>>>>>>Opinions? >>>>>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>>>>Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I believe that they can compete at this level. >>>>>>>>GM's in correspondence chess are players who played well in the past relative to >>>>>>>>their opponents. >>>>>>>>It tells me nothing about their level relative to computers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>GM's who got their rating not in the last years may be even weaker than >>>>>>>>computers because they did not use fast hardware to get their rating. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Not sure ! >>>>>>>Christophe Léotard, better French ELO by correspondence, pulverized on 4 parts >>>>>>>the softwares Hiarcs 7 and Chess Tiger 14 (+3=1-0). >>>>>> >>>>>>The hardware was not fast hardware and I think that at least Hiarcs chose bad >>>>>>opening because of book. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is better if programs trust less the open library in that time control and >>>>>>leave the opening book earlier. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>" The more time of reflexion is reduced, the less the man can compete. By >>>>>>>correspondence, it is not rare to reflect 15 days on a position, to analyze >>>>>>>alternatives which go from the opening to the finale. In addition, the human >>>>>>>ones have a great advantage on the machines in the sense that their libraries of >>>>>>>opening are largely higher, as well qualitatively as quantitatively. It is far >>>>>>>from being the case with the clock. The world n°1 by correspondence, Timmerman, >>>>>>>is classified 2734. It is established that the best machines do not exceed 2100 >>>>>>>at rate correspondence, and I am perhaps still too generous." >>>>>> >>>>>>No >>>>>> >>>>>>Based on my experience it is not the case and I won a lot of 2500+ or 2400+ >>>>>>players based on mainly computer moves. >>>>>> >>>>>>Steve Ham played against computers and lost 2.5-1.5 and he also did not play >>>>>>against the best software and the best hardware of today. >>>>>> >>>>>>I expect 2600 player to beat 2100 player 4-0 in most of the cases so even the >>>>>>3.5-.5 suggests that the programs are more than 2100. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not understand french so I am not going to respond to the last comments. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Hello >>>>> >>>>>You are right if you speak about "chess with clock" but coresspondance chess are >>>>>very different: no time pressure, no tactics tricks, possibility to check your >>>>>opening line in an encyclopedia. or in database. >>>>> >>>>>Look for exemple a the last game of the match Junior-Kasparov. >>>>>Kasparov was in a véry good position beut hard to win so he prefer to drawn the >>>>>game and the match. Do you really think that kasparov would have draw this game >>>>>in correspondance chess ? certainly not. >>>>> >>>>>please excuse my poor english >>>>> >>>>>Phili >>>> >>>>But would this position arise in corrrespondence chess? You talk of how >>>>Kasparov would do better with more time but what about the computer? It's not >>>>going to do better also? Another thing. You talk about the best chess player >>>>in the world not just an ordinary GM. Why is it when people try to claim >>>>computers are not GM level they always want to compare the the #1 rated player >>>>when there are hundreds of GM players that computers beat easily. >>>>Jim >>> >>>hello >>>Computers don't do much better with more time , have you tried to replay the >>>games of this match on your computer ? I do, with a computer wich is a least 10 >>>x less faster, moves are often the same! . >> >> >>This is wrong. >> >>Computers do much better with more time. >> >>The ssdf list always have better rating with better hardware. >> >>I will start to believe that computers do not do much better with more time when >>Movei200 on P1000000 is going to get smaller ssdf rating than Movei200 on >>P500000 inspite of hardware that is 2 times faster thanks to a statistical >>error. >> >>Uri >I am very suspicious with ssdf list andd for testing program really I prefer >match with humans. More than 2700 Elo for shredder (or others)! well I have seen >moves made by shredder (or others) that even a GM with only 2500 Elo and two >liters of beer in stomac never play; >If you don't trust me please go to this : >http://ajec-echecs.org/articles/leotard2.php ( in this page click on >"Hiarcs-Léotard" ) > >and you will see what a coresspondence player which is not world champion and >only 2600 Elo can do to the poor Hiarcs 7 Hiarcs7 is a weak program relative to the programs of today and it was not optimized for long time control(maximal depth of 30 or 32 plies is a joke for correspondence games). I read that page in the past and it did not convince me. I have Hiarcs7.32 and I almost never used it for my correspondence games because it also had the problem of a branching factor of 6 or 7 at long time control and not only the problem of not search more than 30 or 32 plies even in the longest lines. 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.