Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:25:30 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 12:56:29, Mark Young wrote: >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 > > > > Ok... He is a good exception to the rule. We also have a 98 year old senator in the US Senate, and he seems to know which end goes up still. But it _is_ an exception. > >> >>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 0.01 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.