Author: chandler yergin
Date: 14:53:29 10/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2005 at 07:44:08, Majd Al-Ansari wrote: >On October 08, 2005 at 14:26:42, chandler yergin wrote: > >>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? > > >Well, Hydra's methodical destruction of Michael Adams must give it a rating that >is just as impressive as Topolov's performance. If you ran a Blunder check on the Games, you can see Adams played poorly. I am afraid that even the >mighty Topolov will have no chance against Hydra. Would be a very interesting Match indeed.. I'd still bet on Topolov ;) With regards to the >correspondence games that Hydra lost. You have to realize that Hydra was not >"on" all the time between moves. On the other hand you can be assured that the >world champion correspondence player would have several extremely powerful PC's >working overtime, and he most likely would have forced some lines on some >computers for analysis. A professional correspondent player such as Nichols >would have forced the most promising lines using several of his favourite >engines. He would probably choose the results of different engines analysis for >different positions. That kind of effort would be the equivalent of a super >computer far stronger than Hydra in calculating terms.
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.