Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:20:14 04/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2005 at 06:07:37, Tony Nichols wrote: >On April 22, 2005 at 05:44:20, Uri Blass 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. >> >> >>I do not agree. >> >> >> All >>>this hype about Hydra being 3000 elo is a joke. >> >> >>Humans are not 3000 elo but I agree that Hydra is probably weaker than 3000. >> >> 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). >> >>I disagree. >> >>I believe that if players with rating near 2000 play enough games against GM >>they will draw or win games. >> >>People can play many games against computers when they cannot do the same >>against GM's. >> >>I also know about cases when a player with rating under 2000 beated a GM and I >>know of another case when a player with rating of near 2100 beated a GM. >> >> >> 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. >> >>Of course because humans use opening book. >> >>If you want to be fair with no opening book then give them to play a different >>opening position when both sides do not know the position before the game so >>they cannot prepare theory knowledge. >> >>Uri > >Hi, Uri >Some humans use opening books. Some humans write them. A very few create real >theory. No human uses opening books during the game. They remember book moves and play immediatly moves only because they remember them. part of the mistakes of humans in theory are because of bad memory and even kasparov failed to remember moves that he wrote in his notebook and lost a game because of it. As far as 2000 players >beating GMs. I don't think this would happen in a match as opposed to a tourney. >Many times GMs take risks to score more points. >Regards >Tony If you play a match of many games the GM will win the match against 2000 player but in a single game everything can happen. The fact that 2000 players have chances against programs is no proof that GM's play better than programs. Uri
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.