Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:28:58 10/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2004 at 20:15:56, Derek Paquette wrote: >On October 05, 2004 at 19:35:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 05, 2004 at 19:17:06, Derek Paquette wrote: >> >>>On October 05, 2004 at 17:12:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 05, 2004 at 14:14:13, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 05, 2004 at 11:40:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 05, 2004 at 03:25:32, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Where is all the discussion?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There are different dates for games, but start date seems to be 8.10. And after >>>>>>>4 days we know the truth about computers playing level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Jouni >>>>>> >>>>>>How will we know the "truth" after these games, when we apparently don't know >>>>>>the "truth" after all the previous human/computer games??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What truth are we referring about? My only conclusion is that computers tactics >>>>>are so strong nowadays that any strategic advantage that the human GM might have >>>>>over them simply balanced out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Jorge >>>> >>>>I have no idea about what "truth" he was talking about. >>>> >>>>But the computers are _not_ overwhelming the humans in tactics by any stretch... >>> >>>YOu can look at that two ways, >>>1. computers aren't creating or isolating tactical situations and exploiting >>>them >>>2. computers will play tactics near perfectly every time, where a human would >>>not. So you could almost say they are blowing humans off the board with >>>tactics. >> >>I wouldn't say any such thing. Give a computer Shirov's Bh3 sacrifice and see >>how long the "tactical monsters" take to see that, and it is _all_ tactics. The >>main advantage of computers is steady play. Humans occasionally make _big_ >>mistakes. Computers simply do not. Apparently that is enough to produce pretty >>good results... > > > pretty good is an understatment in my opinion. How many times have we seen >computers finish first in a tournament? And these same computers runing these >programs (noteably shredder 8) can be bought off the shelf. So by saying 'good' >is a understatment. Infact the book used in Argentina was the same book from >the box. > >CT15 in Argentina finished first, people didnt know its style as much and got >blown away. > >This upcoming small tournament will be a good test to see just how well 'steady' >play assists in elo points vs humans. > >Yes there are certain moves that computers can't find, but there are a lot of >moves overlooked in tournaments by humans because there are simply too many >things to consider in a 3 minute per move time frame, so they aren't blunders >persay, they are just the runoffs of the advantages of a computer over a human. > >So i agree with you that steady play is one of the reasons, but I disagree with >your 'pretty good' results. > >-Derek Paquette In matches against humans, _what_ program has won one of those matches, with the sole exception of Deep Blue vs Kasparov in 1997? And the moves I recall _are_ blunders. Not in overly complex positions either. Just plain and simple blunders... the last kasparov vs comp match had a couple of good examples...
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.