Author: James Robertson
Date: 11:23:28 06/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 1999 at 13:58:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Sokolov just did. :) James
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.