Author: James Robertson
Date: 08:19:30 06/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 1999 at 21:01:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 21, 1999 at 14:23:28, James Robertson wrote: > >>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 > > >Not quite. He did a single 1800 _move_. Big difference from an 1800 _game_ >if you know what I mean... Yes.... I read the rest of your posts in this thread after this and got your point immediately. :) 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.