Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 02:29:38 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 First of all, the only way to test strength is via verified tournament-conditions games. Although I'm glad that you have such a high opinion of human nature :) As for the strategical holes in engines, I get two impressions: 1) Probably the engines are indeed weaker positionally, and compensate with better tactics. What's interesting is that this is opposite to the go engines - these seem to be relatively strong positionally, and weaker tactically. 2) A lot of humans are over-dogmatic about positional play. Some book has "positional principle" A, and how can the engine not know it? Of course the top players won't "know" these principles either, but we leave them alone. If you want to do an experiment, try playing advanced chess against your engine. If your "guidance" is really good, you should be able to beat it. There were already some experiments involving postal players but I don't know the results. Vas
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.