Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 01:53:33 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 04:46:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >On April 22, 2005 at 03:39:06, Tony Nichols wrote: > >> I know I might make some people mad by what I say but someone should say it. >>Today's chess programs are not nearly as strong as the top human players. All >>this hype about Hydra being 3000 elo is a joke. In fact, All the elo claims for >>computers are a joke. We have seen many examples of class players drawing >>against these programs. These same players would have no chance of drawing even >>an average GM(no disrespect). These high level man vs machine matches are just >>promotional gimmicks. The top players won't play anti-computer chess for many >>reasons: >>1. ego. The players want to beat the computer with normal(manly) chess. They >>also don't want their achievement to be devalued. >>2. money. If you show the weaknesses of the program and systematically beat it >>you certainly will not get invited to another match. >>I find it strange that people who approach computer vs. computer tournaments in >>a very scientific way are the same people who scoff at posts made by players who >>regularly draw against the top programs. Perhaps this information upsets their >>fantasy? I don't know. >>I for one am an avid user of chess programs and I find them invaluable. However, >>even I (1850 elo)have to guide the programs along the right paths during >>analysis. Could you imagine me telling Kasparov that he's missing the point! No. >>The programs perform as well as they do because they are very good at tactics >>and most importantly they have huge opening books. I know this is a >>controversial topic but if we really want to test the strenght of programs, then >>have them play against strong humans without opening books. Many here would not >>even consider it. >>I am interested in what others have to say!? >>Regards >>Tony > >I basicly agree with you, there are positions beyond the comprehention of todays >programs. If you can find a weakness and exploit it repeatedly then by all means >do so, the prog deserves to lose the rating! :) > >But aside from this rather obvious fact, I think chess programmers care mostly >about finding the "objectively" best move in any given position. > >This is part of the problem perhaps, because one of the basic assumptions in the >search algortithm is that the opponent will always respond with the strongest >possible move! >When you play against weaker players this assumption is no longer entirely true! >In fact you should often play a bit crazy just to avoid those drawishly even >positions. >Humans know that but I think most programs aren't designed that way. > >So while I agree that humans could do more to develop anti-computer strategies, >programmers could also do more to develop anti-human strategies. :) > >It just seems no one really cares that much about these 2100 players trying >again and again to draw by a blocked pawn position. >Most programmers just don't see it as a big enough annoyance, having the engine >play differently depending on the opponent is a in fact a much bigger annoyance. > >Anyway, there are certainly more interesting things to work on in a chess engine >:) > >-S. Hi, Sune Thanks for your input. I don't quite understand your comment. "having the engine play differently depending on the opponent is in fact a much bigger annoyance."? Regards Tony
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.