Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 07:00:43 01/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2005 at 05:16:02, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On January 02, 2005 at 04:34:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On January 01, 2005 at 08:52:13, Clive Munro wrote: >> >>>Forgive me if this question has already been discussed but I havn't read all the >>>threads on this site. >>>Has the time been reached that a commercial PC programme can beat Kasparov and >>>co over 40moves in 2 hours control? For instance if we had a 10 game match over >>>say two weeks could a commercial programme running on the latest retail hardware >>>(not 200 pcs linked together etc) beat the top GMs? >>>If not how close is it? >>> >>>Best >>> >>>Clive >> >>It depends upon payment. if you pay the GM regardless of result, what is >>happening always as the computer game company is way too much involved in the >>marketing it generates, then the top GM will of course not care and play 4-4 or >>something or lose. >> >>On the other hand if you only pay him when he wins, he will beat the hell out of >>you. >> >>Yet top GM's are too demanding. We know kasparov wants 1 or 2 million 'match >>fee' paid. You have no option if you want to play kasparov. he will demand >>payment in advance with a bank garantuee. >> >>Kasparov is simply the special case here. he draws so much publicity that you >>should play him if you can afford it. Yet playing him each few years would be >>too expensive for the sales in return :) >> >>The problem of other GM's is that you get near to zero publicity except within >>the chess world itself. You can play an (ex-)FIDE world champ for just a couple >>of thousands. No problem. >> >>Yet he'll demand also payment in advance: "to show up". >> >>He can then give a show without using any of his careful prepared openings, as >>those openings are used against humans only. If a GM has a novelty he'll sure >>won't play it against a computer. Shame. >> >>What we DO know is that the programs have increased in playing strength REALLY a >>lot last few years. >> >>Way more than i had expected myself to be honest. >> >>So a few years ago there was just one time someone who offered to GM's matches >>in the next form. If they would lose, they got nothing. If they drew then 250 >>dollar, if they won then they got $500. >> >>Many very weak GM's took up the challenge and played Rebel. Rebel sure is a good >>program against humans, no question about it. Those real weak GM's 24xx rated >>and 25xx rated easily drew rebel and some actually won. >> >>If you organize again such a match i would expect you will see more of a >>difference. Certain 'profitting' type GM's who managed to kick Rebel by for >>example a sudden attack, they will more and more lose. >> >>However you still can't help certain players who play always the same opening >>and also use it against the computer. >> >>Offer IM Ziatdinov a match against a computer. Or offer GM Boris Kreiman a match >>against a computer. Especially the latter will just destroy it, no matter how >>many processors you use. >> >>He'll play a good opening and destroy it. >> >>Want to find out? >> >>Just pay him $500 a game, for each game he beats a machine of your choosing in >>40 in 2. >> >>Don't even offer money when he draws i would say. >> >>What will the result of a 8 game match be? >> >>Well that depends heavily upon what type of reward you give. >> >>If you offer $500 only for wins and nothing for draws, expect 3-5 wins from the >>GM. If you offer $4000 for winning a 8 game match, he'll beat you with 5 draws >>and 2 white wins and 1 loss from GM side. Just enough to cash in the money. >> >>I specifically mention Kreiman here, because he has a good opening and has >>experience playing software. >> >>I know so many GM's who will perhaps even lose a match from me if i prepare >>well, as their openings suck ass, and they would not prepare a match against me >>nor against the computer, and they have zero chance against any serious >>preparement. All software programs are pretty well prepared because of the >>openings book, but very little are really in depth prepared. >> >>Just mention the GM name, i'll lookup the openings the dude plays, and i can >>already give you a pre-prediction. >> >>Sutovksy? no, not a chance, he'll lose from Nimzo1998. >>IM Ziatdinov? yes, makes a good chance against the software. >>GM Ikonnikov? yes he'll even destroy software long after world champs have won >>from software. Ikonnikov knows he is tactical weak and plays every day in ultra >>safe anti-tactics mode and does do so by playing closed positions preferably. >>Even against 1.e4 !!!! He'll destroy anything. >>Offer him $100 for a draw, $250 for a win, and promise 20 games. >>This will be disastreous for your software. >> >>Rating of those guys doesn't really matter anymore when playing the computer. >>Personal style and motivation and 'bugfree' play are more important. I feel >>that's the difference now against todays hyperagressive software. > >I half-agree here. > >It's true that all engines still have massive problems. Someone with the >positional judgement & opening repertoire of a top player and enough tactical >accuracy could crush them. > >I'm not sure though that any human could pull it off. Kramnik had a big money >incentive to win, was well-prepared, has a clean sound style - and still >couldn't get it done. Chess just has too much tactics. > >Vas You have to admit Kramnik's match against Fritz was incredibly suspicious. First, Kramnik *embarrases* Fritz in their first 4 games, then he makes A) a 1 ply blunder and B) a ridiculous sacrifice to even the score. anthony
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.