Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:26:58 01/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2000 at 16:36:22, Dann Corbit wrote: >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 I disagree there. If you let a GM play a computer over and over, and _then_ play the same program in some serious games, the computer is going to catch hell. Humans evolve. Computer programs do not. Once he finds a hole, he will exploit it over and over, while a human would 'learn'. That will be a weakness for another 25 years or more. >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.