Author: Richard Pijl
Date: 02:28:33 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
One program demonstrating this point is currently quite popular on ICC. It hardly has knowledge (basic piece-square tables + some very basic positional scoring for e.g. rooks on open files and doubled pawns). It plays using a Pentium Pro 200Mhz, and doesn't have advanced search methods in it, just plain Alpha-Beta with 32Mb hashtables. It has no knowledge about king-safety, no knowledge about passed pawns and no opening book (although it has position learning that evolves in something that you could call an opening book) and no EGTB's. Yet, it manages to win most of its games, even some against titled players. It also loses quite a few games to under-1800 players, due to the obvious weaknesses it has. Almost all of its games are won on tactics. Somehow I think this program is popular because everybody gets the feeling that it should be beatable (and it is!!) but the human weakness in shallow (but usually messy) tactics is usually sufficient to not win those games. I guess that with top programs and top-GM's it is the same thing. Btw, that none of the programs is meeting top-GM's without a book is not true. Last year, the Baron played a 2-game rapid match against GM Levon Aronian during the Chess Classic event in Mainz). This year (August 10th 2005) the Baron will play two games against GM Peter Svidler. As this will be a Chess960/FRC game, the Baron will not be using an opening book (and neither is Svidler :-). http://www.chesstigers.de/index_news.php?id=223&rubrik=4 (German article) Richard. 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
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.