Author: Mark Young
Date: 09:56:29 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 12:38:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On August 30, 2001 at 12:21:27, Mark Young wrote:
>
>>On August 30, 2001 at 11:44:19, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On August 30, 2001 at 10:38:06, Mark Young wrote:
>>>
>>>>On August 30, 2001 at 10:13:31, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On August 30, 2001 at 09:31:42, Mark Young wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 22:03:12, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 16:39:09, Mark Young wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 16:22:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 16:16:06, Mark Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 15:36:54, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 15:21:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 14:41:48, Mark Young wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 14:03:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 13:52:33, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 12:52:15, Roy Eassa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This sentence DOES say a lot, doesn't it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"By the summer of 1990--by which time three of the original Deep Thought team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>had joined IBM--Deep Thought had achieved a 50 percent score in 10 games played
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>under tournament conditions against grandmasters and an 86 percent score in 14
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>games against international masters."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That was 7 years before, and many-fold slower hardware (and much weaker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>software, no doubt), than what played Kasparov in 1997.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This sentence tells me nothing new.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I know that humans at that time did not know how to play against computers like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they know today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Today programs got clearly better results than deep thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and there is more than one case when they got >2700 performance inspite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the fact that the opponents could buy the program they played against them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>something that Deep thought's opponents could not do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Deep thought produced a rating of 2655 over 25 consecutive games against a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>variety of opponents. None of them were "inexperienced" in playing against
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>computers. Byrne. Larson. Browne. You-name-it. That argument doesn't hold
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>up under close scrutiny.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In some ways, it appears that the GMs of today are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prepared far worse than the GMs of 1992 were prepared to play computers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don?t see how GM?s of today are less prepared to play computers. Anyone of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>them can and has played computer programs at home stronger then the programs of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the early 1990?s.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I am basing that on the games I have seen, plus the important detail that in
>>>>>>>>>>>>1992, strong GM players at the US Open, the World Open, and other events
>>>>>>>>>>>>(particularly those in the northeast US) knew they would be facing Hitech,
>>>>>>>>>>>>Deep Thought, and at times, Belle and others. Since 1995 this has not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>the case as it is nearly impossible to find a tournament in the US that will
>>>>>>>>>>>>allow a computer to compete. If they aren't going to face the machines, they
>>>>>>>>>>>>aren't going to study them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don?t think preparation is the problem. It is the strength of the programs of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>today. It seems if you are not in the top 100 of the Fide list your chances of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>besting the better programs is not very good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>It seems clear that the programs of today are stronger then Deep Thought of 1992
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that produced a rating of 2655 playing against "Byrne. Larson. Browne.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You-name-it". Do you agree with this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>No I don't. I would agree that probably they programs of today are in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>same league with Deep Thought of 1992, maybe. At least on the 8-way boxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Their NPS speed would be similar. Deep Thought wasn't known to be an incredibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>"smart" program, neither are today's programs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I consider the top programs of today as clearly smarter than Deep thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Deep thought had also a problem in the repetition detection and I believe that
>>>>>>>>>>>the search algorithm of the top programs of today is superior because Deep
>>>>>>>>>>>thought did not use null move or other pruning methods.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I agree, and there are many games to play over that show todays programs are
>>>>>>>>>>much smarter and faster then Deep Thought of 1992. Even without a 8-way box. To
>>>>>>>>>>me it is clear that preparation is not the problem, as any GM can play much
>>>>>>>>>>stronger programs then Deep Thought, Hitech, Etc. of the 1980's and early
>>>>>>>>>>1990's. And it has already been suggested as fact all programs have the same
>>>>>>>>>>fundamental weaknesses. So playing any top program or studying any old Deep
>>>>>>>>>>Thought games should be the only preparation needed. As this is the only prep
>>>>>>>>>>the early GM's had when facing Deep Thought.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>BTW. I don't understand how we take as fact that "Byrne. Larson. Browne.
>>>>>>>>>>You-name-it" prepared for their games with computers, but any of today's GM's
>>>>>>>>>>that know their playing computers and also lose don't prepare for their games.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>How does Bob and other know what kind of preparation past or present GM's do
>>>>>>>>>>when they know they are facing a computer program.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Perhaps we ask? I know several that will answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Let ask, GM Leko, GM Huebner, GM Pablo Ricardi, GM Andres Rodriguez, GM Oscar
>>>>>>>>Panno, GM Alejandro Hoffman, for starters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>BTW: What kind of preparations did GM Byrne, GM Larson, and GM Browne do to
>>>>>>>>prepare for Deep Thought since you already know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I didn't talke to Larson, ever. I talked to byrne on more than one occasion
>>>>>>>as he helped me with some analysis of some moves by Cray Blitz. Browne was
>>>>>>>quite calm about Deep Thought. I looked over his shoulder one night and
>>>>>>>watched him play over several deep thought games from memory. Which showed that
>>>>>>>he had studied the thing at length. Byrne thought Deep Thought was the
>>>>>>>beginning of the end for humans being the best chess players around. He took
>>>>>>>DT very seriously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"And he studied the games several times looking for ways to
>>>>>>exploit the thing. He simply wasn't up to it tactically, however."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bob this is the point many of us have been making, but why to you does this only
>>>>>>apply to Deep Thought. Many GM's even with preparation are not up to dealing
>>>>>>with the tactics of todays computer programs. That's why they lose, even with
>>>>>>preparation!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you realize how _old_ Robert Byrne is?
>>>>
>>>>Yes I know, he was born in 1928, but age is not the issue, In 1992 GM Byrne was
>>>>rated about 2500 elo that is the issue. It is not how old you are it is how well
>>>>you still play chess. If you have doubt ask GM Korchnoi
>>>
>>>One exception to a general rule.
>>
>>Wrong many players are strong in their 50, 60, 70, etc. Some player even get
>>better with age.
>
>
>
>I don't want to get into yet another argument here. But name one world
>champion in the last 50 years that was over 70 years old. There are none.
>
"Name one 70+ year old player that is a serious competitor in major
tournaments."
You asked for it you got it.
The winner of the Grandmaster Tournament 2001, Biel 2001 Cat XI 2650 (Major
Tournament)
GM Viktor Kortchnoi, Switzerland Age 70!!
Ranking:
Points Sonneborn
1. GM Viktor Kortchnoi SUI 2617 6 28.75
2. GM Peter Svidler RUS 2695 5.5 26.75
3. GM Boris Gelfand ISR 2714 5 24.25
4. GM Yannick Pelletier SUI 2531 4.5 23.5
5. GM Joel Lautier FRA 2675 4.5 22.75
6. GM Alexander Grischuk RUS 2669 4.5 22
>
>Age unfortunately takes its toll. Mental processes slow down. Memory fades
>away. Along with it some of the necessary skill to play chess.
>
>>
>>BTW: A rating takes concentration into account, as if you lose concentration you
>>tend to lose games against any player....not just computers. A 2500 elo is 2500
>>at 20 or 100 years of age.
>
>Not quite the same. Against a computer, any tactical mistake will be noticed
>quickly. Against a human, he will often not notice the mistake either if it is
>very subtle or complicated. In human blitz you will see two GMs slug it out
>with a queen en prise for 3 straight moves. Against a computer, that queen
>won't last one move.
>
>I think just watching Kasparov vs Deep Blue 2 showed just how mentally draining
>it is to check and re-check every bit of OTB analysis you rely on to make a
>move, so that you can be sure you are not making an obvious strategic move but
>hanging a piece to a 20 ply combination.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>GM Huebner is as old as what GM Byrne was when Huebner played Deep Fritz. The
>>only difference is GM Huebner is 2600+. Or is GM Huebner just another exception
>>to a general rule that is wrong in many cases.
>
>
>Hubner is nowhere near as strong today as he was 20 years ago either. Neither
>is Karpov. Korchnoi. Etc. Chess is pretty well dominated by younger players
>for obvious reasons. (younger = 20 to 40, or maybe even 50 on occasion).
>
>It will be interesting to see how Kramnik stands up to the mental pressure
>this is going to put on him.
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.