Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:42:23 01/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2005 at 13:43:16, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On January 02, 2005 at 10:00:43, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>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 > >Not any more suspicious than the other man-machine matches. It's the normal >story - when the human wins he completely outplays the machine, when the human >loses he either overlooks something or tries something crazy. > >Vas Humans at the leval of Kramnik do mistakes when they lose but they usually do not do 1 ply mistakes. A lot of people suspect that kramnik simply lost on purpose because of the way that he lost. 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.