Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 02:39:07 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 05:29:38, Vasik Rajlich 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 > >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 Hi, Vasik I am probably one of those overly dogmatic players:) It is an interesting experiment, But I think many postal games are played this way already! 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.