Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:58:32 06/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 1999 at 12:44:25, Paul Richards wrote: >On June 21, 1999 at 09:29:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >True, but GMs make terrible blunders too. The difference is that the >program will make the same sort of blunder until you fix it. > You missed my point... tactical blunders are not uncommon. But this game was _not_ a blunderful game... It was just positional mistake on top of positional mistake... IE no one move led to that position around move 25, it took _several_... > >>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. > >True, but the only real measure of strength is in the result. The relative >strength of a human GM is knowledge, the strength of the computer is >tactics. You posted a quote from a GM observing a game who admitted that >in complex tactical positions Crafty was much stronger than he was. In >other words it's common knowledge what the relative strengths and >weaknesses of the two species are. They are two different animals with >a different approach to the game. But just as we don't dismiss human >GMs for making tactical blunders, we can't say programs are "weak" >because of their lesser knowledge. Sometimes DB played like a non-GM, >other times it clearly out-thought Kasparov. So what? He lost. The >sum of DB's strengths minus its weaknesses was greater than Kasparov's >total for the match. What matters where ratings and titles are concerned >is the final result. Note that computers are better _in some types of tactics_. But there are positions where a computer has no chance. IE Shirov's Bh3 sac. It is not impossible to solve with the right extensions, but no one does yet (perhaps excepting DB as I haven't asked Hsu if he has tried it). But there are still _plenty_ of places where a human GM can tactically blow away a computer, because in some cases, the tactics occur after a 30 ply forcing line that the GM can follow but the computer can't... IE computers are tactically strong, but not invincible. Crafty still loses blitz games to GM players. Not real often, but enough to see where it has tactical problems even at 1M nodes per second... > >>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?. > >The consistency issue is debatable. GMs play well until they make their >next blunder. Computers are obviously completely consistent, it's just >that their weaknesses are only exposed when certain positions crop up, so >it has the appearance of a sporadic phenomenon. But if a computer plays >like a GM a good percentage of the time, it's a GM. Once a human earns >a GM title, it can't be taken away, so you don't have to have a great >performance every game or every tournament. Once you earn that title >with a few good performances it's yours, so by that measure I think the >programs would have easily earned their titles by now. Computers are not consistent at all... From something I have told before: Before Jakarta, Roman was playing lots of games vs Crafty to help me tun it. One day he called and started on the 'bad bishop' thing once again.... and said that he had found it serious enough that he was able to make it screw up fairly frequently. A week later he called back and said "much better... it is not hemming in its own bishop any longer... good work." I didn't have the heart to tell him I had made no changes as this was only 2 weeks prior to the tournament. :) IE it looks like a genius in some games, like an idiot in others. As do all programs... A computer might play like this over 8 games: 2500 2500 2500 2500 1800 2600 2500 2400. A GM won't have that 1800 game.
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.