Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 05:24:09 06/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 1999 at 09:50:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 24, 1999 at 00:39:39, Sarah Bird wrote: > >>On June 23, 1999 at 18:22:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 23, 1999 at 00:37:10, Sarah Bird wrote: >>> >>>>On June 22, 1999 at 20:12:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 22, 1999 at 15:41:58, Howard Exner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I think different versions of Junior have logged in >>>>>>40/2 tournament games against strong humans. Anyone have stats on these >>>>>>results? I vaguely recall it doing quite well even on slower hardware. >>>>>> >>>>>>What is the time control for the upcoming Karpov - Shredder game? >>>>>> >>>>>>Slowly a collection of tournament condition >>>>>>40/2 encounters will put to rest the speculation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Just so we follow formal 'sampling theory' here. IE we do _not_ want to pick >>>>>a good result by Junior without picking all the bad results. Easier is to take >>>>>these Rebel games and other acceptable games as they are played, rather than >>>>>going back. Because to sample backward you have to include _all_ the data >>>>>points, else 'cherry-picking' will greatly bias the result... >>>> >>>>Following excerpt is from IM Larry Kaufman's review of Hiarcs 7 >>>>"HIARCS, by Applied Computer Concepts Ltd. with chess engine by British >>>>programmer Mark Uniacke, has been one of the very strongest programs for the >>>>last several years. The current version, 7.0, is apparently no exception. The >>>>latest Swedish rating list (the most widely accepted standard for comparing >>>>computer programs) ranks it third, just an insignificant 9 rating points behind >>>>the co-leaders (CM 6000 and Fritz 5.32) and substantially ahead of the latest >>>>rated versions of such strong programs as Junior, Rebel, MChess Pro, and Genius. >>>>Moreover it is up an impressive 43 points from its predecessor, Hiarcs 6. To >>>>fully appreciate just how strong Hiarcs 7 is, consider that its Swedish rating >>>>of 2567 was earned on hardware (200 MHz MMX) markedly inferior to the latest >>>>models (450-500 MHz). Moreover, the Swedish ratings are particularly severe, >>>>almost certainly more conservative than FIDE ratings and far below USCF ratings. >>>>These ratings are based on 40/2 games with other computers, with the overall >>>>level of the list based on games with human competition some years ago. Although >>>>I suspect that the level of the top computers may be a bit overstated now due to >>>>failure to recalibrate the list based on today's GM level computers, this should >>>>be offset by the severity of Swedish ratings in the past, so my guess is that >>>>the 2567 rating at 200 MHz would hold up in FIDE competition today, which would >>>>imply a FIDE rating over 2600 on today's fast machines. In other words, HIARCS 7 >>>>plays tournament chess on a par with the top five players in the U.S. This in >>>>turn implies that at action chess (game/30') HIARCS 7 probably plays around 2700 >>>>FIDE level, on a par with the number ten player in the world, and should play >>>>blitz better than Kasparov, Kramnik, and Anand." >>> >>> >>>Larry is entitled to his opinion. However, he was writing about 2400 programs >>>in the days of the 486/33 too. And while he can write about them, it doesn't >>>mean that they are there yet. Lets just wait for a while and see whether the >>>gap widens (5 to 3 so far) or gets closer, or if the programs can actually pass >>>the humans... >> >>Robert, my own personal opinion is that they are not at that level however I >>always respect the rights of others to believe that they are. I honestly feel >>that if computers were playing in high rated events say cat 15 and up that GM's >>would eat them up after some heavy preparation against playing computers. Which >>means if computers were allowed to participate in these events GM's would be >>forced into preparation in the same way they now prepare lines for other GM's. >>Sarah. > >You are right of course. The folks that continually talk about programs at >GM level don't know any GM players. I've been trying to convince one of several >GM players to maybe participate here in a discussion with everyone, because they >can quickly explain just why programs are not there yet. And if we could get >a program into FIDE, where results are important, preparation would be a >_serious_ problem... > >I think it will be hard to get a GM to discuss this however, because they _know_ >that the discussion will turn ugly when someone disagrees with them... When I play my kind of advanced chess (playing whith a look at the score and taking back moves when I think it's appropriate) I usually win. That would not happen if I would play a grandmaster. So computers are at present no grandmasters. Computers have often no idea about the position. Another point: If you had a difficult position, would you prefer to give it to fritz etc. or would you prefer a grandmaster to have a look at it. Here is an easy position. How long takes your program to find a win for white? FEN: 3k4/q7/3p/p2P1p/P2P1P///K6Q w Kind regards Bernhard to analyze it for an hour
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.