Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:36:22 01/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2000 at 16:09:41, Chris Carson wrote: [snip] >I agree with you. This is a weakness of the programs. If a GM is prepared >for a program and knows the programs weakness, it is over. Although the >same maybe true for a human opponent of a GM (hmm?). :) > >By compete, do you mean win more than loose to a 2500 FIDE GM? Or is >it something different? I am not sure what mean what people mean when they >say compete. I am not sure what they mean by GM strength. By compete, I mean really be at that level. The computer programs are slowly gaining positional knowlege. If you look a the evals for Phalanx or Crafty, you will see positional understanding. It is even better for some of the commercial programs. I think that a computer program can be made to recognize that it is in a locked position. In such circumstances, they may change strategy. >Rebel century is close to 2500 (between 2450 and 2500) performance rating >at match play. My opinion: The rating would be higher on an Athalon 800. >I also think tournaments provide a better rating estimate than match play >(for the reasons I stated above about preparedness). :) The GM's that play against them have been playing normal GM type games. See what happens when they play D00 or some other locked formation. Let them study anti-computer strategy and play 100 games against the target program. I think the rating would drop at least one hundred points. >When I play, I consider anyone within 200 points competative. They have >a good chance (not above 50%, but not zero) to win. Am I off base here? :) With improvements in hardware and software, in four years computers would be able to complete a GM norm, even with: 1. GM's playing against the machine as often as they like to learn the strengths and weaknesses 2. Closed and positional strategies plied against the programs I think that is true for two reasons. First, the programs will be 100 ELO stronger just from hardware. Second, the programs will gain enough positional knowlege and stragegic understanding to compete, though GM's will still be better. However, the ability to see any tactic that is 7 moves away without fail will compensate for the lesser strategic ability, even with anti-computer tactics. I'm no Nostradamus, but I think the prediction will hold true. It's really more of a guess, though. Let's call it that.
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.