Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:25:51 10/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2004 at 01:09:03, Derek Paquette wrote: >On October 05, 2004 at 22:28:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >I'm so tired at 1 am that I forgot to respond to the rest of your post, >we are both in agreement that the 'steady' play of the programs is the reason >they are competing with grandmasters, what we are disagreeing with here is that >I believe they are now stronger (top programs are top hardware) whereas you put >them as "pretty good" How can they be "stronger" when they can't win _any_ matches??? Good? Definitely. But "stronger"? The "stronger" player should at least win a match here and there...
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.