Author: Roman Hartmann
Date: 02:16:29 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
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'm commenting mainly the anti-computer chess thing: I kibitzed quite a few of such anti computer games on playchess as well. Most (>90%) of them were lost for the human player, of course. But all of those games were played with the intention to reach a draw or to win the game on time. At the end of the games when the engines were running out of time some of the engines tried to tear the position open by sacrifying pawns, knights or bishops or even a rook (especially Ruffian seems to do that when running out of time). Once the position was opened _all_ the games I kibitzed were won by the engines. Often the 3 seconds left on the clock were more than enough time to crush the human opponents just easily. Now if the engines would be 'aware' that their opponent is not a strong computer or a strong engine but rather a mediocre player just trying to get away with a draw or to win on time the engine could avoid such dead draw positions by giving away some material earlier and get an open position. There wouldn't be much draws/wins on time against engines by mediocre human players anymore. But as most engines are programmed to win games against other strong engines or strong human opponents playing 'real chess' instead of stonewalling and moving the king back and forth a hundred times they can't deal with that properly, obviously. Still I don't think that strong engines in the future will have anti-stonewalling techniques implemented as it will hurt playing strength when playing other strong computers. Roman PS: I have certainly respect for those stonewalling and winning/drawing against Shredder/Fritz ... but I just don't care that much for it as it's not very attractive chess and it doesn't have a future. There won't be a multi million dollar match Hydra-"stonewalling/trying to win on time human X" :)
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.