Author: Paul Richards
Date: 17:04:21 06/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 1999 at 13:58:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I've seen this mentioned several times, can someone post the position this refers to? But I grant the point. >>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. :) That was essentially what I was getting at. Computers are literally consistent in their approach (unless you have some sort of randomization code) in that the program does may not change from one game to the next, but the style of play apparently changes due to playing different positions in different sequences. In other words the program stays the same but the execution sequence does not, and you won't see the same things or same "style" every game. >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. I understand the point that a GM will make a tactical blunder but a program will give the appearance of multiple personality disorder, and actually seem to play like a weak player one day and a GM the next. But if the program can take the scalps to where it would earn a GM rating, then it plays at GM level even though it doesn't have GM knowledge. If a program really did have GM level knowledge it would probably be the world champion on ordinary hardware. Alternatively if you could put ten of Hsu's cards in a big server you could probably get the same effect via the brute method, which seems more likely. But either way ratings are ratings. Incidentally it would nice to have Roman around for advice. I have a few of his Roman Forum videos, and apart from his chess talents he seems like a super nice guy. Give him a big hello for me, and tell him I'm looking forward to him writing some books. ;)
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.