Author: Mark Young
Date: 17:47:22 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: I think I finally figured out your problem with this topic. You talk to too many Grandmasters that are trying to save face against computers. :) > >>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! >>Actually hardly no further games are needed. And remember, that average GM has >>only 2500 as rating. > >That is incorrect. 2500 is the _minimum_ rating to earn the GM title, the >average is well above this. > > > > >> >>I was at the playing hall in Paderborn. The conditions were excellent and >>sure GMs were playing very serious. I was sitting quite near Fritz - Sokolov >>board and after 14. Bh6 Sokolov's look was "interesting". He starts to think >>about 20 minutes. In the continuation I didn't heard him to resign, but after >>move 24. he simply starts to discuss with Friz operator Feist.... > > > >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?" > >So they are very strong, yes. And if you want to lump these games together >with what we have so far, I don't have a problem with that. So far, I am >counting: > >Humans 5 (counting Anand and Rohde vs Rebel) >progs 3 > >at 40/2hr. That is within reason for a 2400-2600 rating split, particularly >when the just-finished 5 games were played with little preparation by the GM >players, since they didn't know who they were playing 24 hours before they >played. > >Yes, I think the machines are doing well. No I don't think they are 2500+ >_yet_. And the gaps in the program's knowledge are big enough that I don't >think that tactics alone will make up the difference. It goes a long way, >but it doesn't close all the holes. > >One example (I won't name the GM because he asked me not to, and I won't name >the program because I am not certain of the hardware nor that the program was >that which was claimed since I only watched): > >The other nite on ICC, a GM friend of mine asked me to watch 2 games a friend >of his was playing against a computer. The computer hardware was supposedly a >PIII/500 xeon (1 processor) running a program that everyone here thinks is a >very 'smart' one based on NPS. In the two games I watched, the GM made it look >easy. This 'smart' program seemed to not be real aware of the dangers of a >'distant passed pawn' and allowed the GM to create one, and trade material, >until it would see it was lost. I wasn't playing the game, obviously, so I >can't say how 'hard' the GM was 'thinking', but my 'friend' (not the one that >was playing) commented on this. That is a _fatal_ mistake were this program >trying to make its way up the GM ranks, because word spreads, and it simply >gets rolled game after game. I am pretty sure that until a GM finds this >'hole', that program will give them fits on decent hardware. And I am also >sure that once a GM finds that hole, it is over except for the occasional >tactical mistake he will make that the program won't overlook. > >The thing we are 'missing' in the programs is the 'consistency' that GM players >have. IE Shredder played very well throughout the tournament, yet reached a >position in the playoff that I doubt even a 2000 player would reach. almost >zero mobility. Cramped. Inactive. A position unlike one I have ever seen >while watching hundreds of GM games on the chess servers... The problem is >_not_ impossible to solve. But it is _not_ solved just yet. > >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. 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.