Author: Mark Young
Date: 13:02:50 01/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
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. You say "It depends upon payment"....But what data can you show to prove this Idea? The idea that motivation is the only thing keeping GM's from "beating the hell out of you"(or computers) is not a argument that works. The GM's play and lose against computers, or draw at best. This is record...anything else is speculation. > >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.
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.