Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:45:27 07/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 1999 at 11:29:24, KarinsDad wrote:
>On July 12, 1999 at 06:47:48, Andrew Williams wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>I'm not trying to "drop out the chess half" of computer chess. I just
>>think that talking about which human player is going to play in which
>>upcoming tournament is *completely* off-topic in this forum. This forum
>>works very well because the vast majority of threads are about computer
>>chess. I think we should all try to keep it that way.
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Andrew
>
>BTW, I was being a little facetious here, but the point is valid. EVERY superGM
>game should be analyzed move by move by the programs in order to determine
>whether or not the programs have any chance of coming up with the same move. It
>is only by understanding why superior human players make a given move that one
>can start to understand how to improve the programs beyond their 1700 level
>chess playing knowledge level of today. The reason that I say 1700 (probably a
>high estimate) is that programs do not have REAL sophisticated chess knowledge
>in them. If I could calculate 100 kNPS, then I would be about a 2600 or 2700
>player as well.
>
>The only way to get programs better is to understand the best moves of the best
>players on the planet. To do that, you should be talking about the games and
>tournaments of those players. To draw the line between the superGMs and the
>programs / hardware / algorithms / cctournaments is to limit the breadth of
>where you can actually go with computer chess. Why should we limit our minds?
>
>KarinsDad :)
>
>PS. An interesting experiment may be to limit various programs to 6 ply (the
>average distance an average player may search) and see how well they perform.
>From this, a rough estimate of a given program's chess knowledge level could be
>made. This experiment has probably been done before at various ply. Does anyone
>know whether it has been done and what the results were?
I can give some data. Chess Tiger 11.8 played in April in a human tournament. I
was using a 386 SX 20MHz notebook and 2Mb hash tables.
On this computer, and given the time control (game in 30 minutes), Tiger was
only able to search between 5 to 7 plies deep. Say 6 plies in average.
Tiger won this tournament with 6.5 points out of 7. The FIDE Elo performance was
above 2000.
So I don't think my program has "1700 level chess playing knowledge". And I
think this applies as well to many other good chess programs. I think Rebel or
Genius could have easily won the tournament too.
Christophe
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.