Author: chandler yergin
Date: 11:26:42 10/08/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2005 at 11:52:04, Roger D Davis wrote:
>On October 06, 2005 at 19:51:47, Terry McCracken wrote:
>
>>On October 06, 2005 at 19:35:23, Roger D Davis wrote:
>>
>>>On October 06, 2005 at 11:53:05, Terry McCracken wrote:
>>>
>>>>He may be dismissing computer chess too lightly, but I've watched players on ICC
>>>>who were NOT GMs and obtain winning positions against these "silicon brutes",
>>>>and often they're losses are on time. The games were 15/0 or small time
>>>>increments. These favour machines, still I've seen them burn but escape due to
>>>>the bell.
>>>>
>>>>There are people here who do in fact beat programs, and we know this to be
>>>>true.
>>>>
>>>>Anand never took the matches between Kramnik and Fritz too seriously or Kasparov
>>>>matches with Deep Junior or Deep Fritz. If you really look at those games, you
>>>>can see both Kramnik and Kasparov dominating these beasts, but for what ever
>>>>reason they messed up in even and also won positions, more than once.
>>>>So those matches don't mean as much as you think. Sure the machines were strong,
>>>>but in no way better than either of these grandmasters.
>>>>
>>>>Hydra is the only _real_ exception, and even here, GM Nichols with a computer
>>>>was beating it at corr. GM Topolov had it beat and let it slip to a draw.
>>>>There's a stronger ver. now but I suspect a top GM on a good day who plays
>>>>computers often, could win a game, even a match, but I suspect after GM Adams
>>>>poor performance we might not see such an event. What a shame.
>>>>
>>>>Machines are NOT completely dominating the top humans or very experienced
>>>>computer players, at least not yet. Say what you will, but the losses are often
>>>>due to oversights that make the machines look better than the actually are.
>>>>
>>>>That's my two cents.
>>>>
>>>>Terry
>>>
>>>Maybe humans should be allowed to take back an oversight when they play
>>>computers. At least 1 oversight per game. More than that and they deserve to
>>>lose.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>
>>You are joking yes? Well that would really favour the grandmasters;-)
>>I also think their egos wouldn't let them accept these terms.
>>
>>Terry
>
>Well...people are saying that computers just can't play at a GM level because
>the GM loses interest and messes up the game. So give them 1 take back. They'll
>still lose. Not all losses are due to dramatic errors like overlooking a
>combination.
I think you missed Terry's Point:
"Sure the machines were strong,
but in no way better than either of these grandmasters."
"Hydra is the only _real_ exception, and even here, GM Nichols with a computer
was beating it at corr."
In fact he won both games.
"GM Topolov had it beat and let it slip to a draw."
Remember, Opening Books are based on games played.. played by Grandmasters,
the Top 99.9 % in the world. So, in reality, in the Opening, they are playing
against themselves. A small mistake in the Opening by humans, therefore has
serious effects in the middle and endgame.
>
>Then it becomes much harder to argue that computers aren't GM strength. If you
>bend over backwards to accommodate human players and they still lose, well...
>
>Roger
Ratings are an indication of 'performance' not true strength.
Look at Topolov's performance Rating 3158 !
Show me a Computer that comes close!
Hmmm? Anyone?
This page took 0.01 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.