Author: Harald Faber
Date: 07:10:35 06/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 1999 at 09:29:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 21, 1999 at 04:18:57, Jouni Uski wrote: > >>After this 2 - 2 (Cilkchess removed) against super GMs with average ELO >>2621 I think there is no doubt, that PC programs are playing at GM level! > >Let me give you my reasons why I _still_ consider computers to be 2400 >players: > >1. Pick any of the 5 programs that played the GM players. I will find a >game where they played so badly that if you look at _that_ game no one would >consider that program to be a GM. For example, take the winner and look at >the playoff game. Three different GM players commented that they had _never_ >seen white screw up the opening so badly... > >2. Fritz won in the same way that Deep Blue won the last game vs Kasparov, >actually even worse... The GM simply made a blunder that a 2000 rated player >would spot in an instant. If you take that win away, the even result goes >away. > >3. I've been working on chess programming for a long time. And regardless of >how they 'seem' to play in many games, I still know just what they can and can't >do. And they are nowhere near a GM's level in 'knowledge'. They are still >surviving on tactics. And there are plenty of GM players that know how to >squelch tactics and make the game hinge on positional play. And there the >programs simply don't measure up. > >4. I still consider computers to be 2400+. What is the probability that in >5 games, 2400 players could play evenly with a group of GMs rated 2600? some- >thing like 25%? > >5. GM players exhibit a consistency in quality that computers don't. A >computer will play like a GM for 5 games, and like a beginner for 1. What >happens when the GM players learn what the computer can't do and then >exploit that game after game?. We had at least 4 different GM players watching >part of the games on ICC (particularly the GM games the last day) and it was >quite a common question "how can the machine play this opening, and then play >_that_ move?" Or "why does the machine play so nicely for several games and >then play like a beginner here?" I would really like to know the positions/games where the GMs made such comments and the suggested better moves. I am sure we can learn a lot from that. >This match was 'data'. Let's see how it looks when our data reaches 10 and >then 20 games. So far we only have 8. And 5-3 is not a horrible result for >the machines. Unfortunately, based on prior experience, the programs tend to >win early games and lose later ones as the GM players spot weaknesses that >can be exploited. Even IM players comment on the current crop of programs not >doing decently with 'king safety' and how they are all very insensitive to >long-term kingside attacks. But up to now it is still hard to exploit these weaknesses as the results show. GMs certainly understand much more of chess, no doubt. The problem is to profit from it. >Playing on ICC will expose such. If I didn't >tweak things regularly, or add code to handle cases I was not handling before, >I would do horribly on ICC. Because after a while, players find the weaknesses >and then they sit on those over and over and over. Unfortunately programs are >complex enough that fixing one often exposes more... > >Other opinions are welcomed of course. This is only _mine_.
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.