Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 02:20:31 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 05:16:29, Roman Hartmann 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'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" :) Hi, Roman I agree with your post.I wonder what time control these games were? 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.