Author: Majd Al-Ansari
Date: 23:50:30 10/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2005 at 10:09:24, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 10, 2005 at 09:43:00, chandler yergin wrote: > >>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 > >It may be correct for stephan ham but he is not a top correspondence player. > >I believe that top correspondence players usually use computers to analyze >positions for many hours. > >It does not mean trusting blindly the computer moves but they may analyze what >happens after the computer move and compare with what happens after the move >that they prefer. > >If there is an interesting forced line they may analyze for a long time with >computer after the forced line to help them to evaluate the final position of >the forced line. > >Uri Exactly !!! Thanks Uri that is exactly what I meant. Ofcourse correspondence chess players use their brain and their chess knowledge. But good CC players will be able to use moves that they think are best and let computers do a tactics check that they are sound. This combination will greatly diminsh the sharp claws of any calculating monster. A good CC might think that a certain computer move is just not correct because it doesn't feel right (I remember a Bishop move moving back to its original place right in the opening by Fritz in Bahrain when I was sitting in the giant screen they had there and Kramnik quickly took advantage and one nicely). A good CC player would never have used that move even if the computer had given a huge + score. So the use of many good computers as a help cannot be ignored. The combination of a good CC player with computer aid would IMHO be conservatively rated over 3000 ELO if the time factor was eliminated as a measure (for the CC player) and placed on a normal 40 move in 2 hours for the opponent.
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.