Author: chandler yergin
Date: 06:43:00 10/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2005 at 17:53:29, chandler yergin wrote: >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. Sorry, Correspondence players use their own Brain! Stephen Ham & Peter Berger I'm sure would be insulted by your comments. They use Computers O-n-l-y to check for obvious blunders. Ask them! cy
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.