Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:26:58 05/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2002 at 19:53:14, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 21, 2002 at 17:05:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 20, 2002 at 12:22:40, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On May 20, 2002 at 10:15:44, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>Excuse me if I ask a question already answered a hundred times or more in this >>>>forum. Could someone explain, perhaps in understandable numbers of percentages, >>>>how important the strength of the engine is in chess programs, are there >>>>differences between commercial and amateur programs? >>>> >>>>Let me demonstrate a little thought experiment. If I would gauge (in 2002) the >>>>actually most known chess programs against say 1000 human chess players (first >>>>step) to get some insight into the Elo numbers, I would expect that the top >>>>programs would at best get Elo performances of 2200 - 2350, if I let the engines >>>>play without books and implemented book-like tricks. >>> >>>I expect the best programs with no book to do better than 2200-2350 if the >>>humans also do not prepare special lines against the machines. >> >>But +if+ the humans know the computers are not using a book, the humans >>will play opening lines that require deep analysis to avoid traps. The >>Marshall. The Evans. The Goring. The King's gambit. Etc. This used to >>be a common ploy in the 1970's against computers because back then the books >>were very small. > >Thank you for your fair input of historical facts. Some of us see the "numbers" >of 2700 and even more and so they thought that I must have lost my mind with my >2200-2350. Althought I mentioned that ist was more a resulting number after >human players began the real fight. Of course this would only happen with a lot >money at stake. I find it very important that the readers always kept in mind >while watching events like Gurevich vs Junior that all this is not yet part of a >real battle human chessplayers vs computers. Actually it's more fun than battle. >And the player gets some money no matter if he'll loose. > >Rolf Tueschen > Be _very_ careful in reading what I wrote. I did _not_ say that programs were 2300 (or 1900 as Phil Innes claimed) without a book. I simply claimed that the books make a difference. And humans that are computer-savvy will take advantage of the "no book" information to try to take the computer into a position that it doesn't understand very well. IE David Levy used to beat programs quite successfully playing the Goring Gambit (a variation of the Scotch based on e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 c3 ...) Black wins a pawn instantly but has to look at the white bishop pair for a long time in return. And a single mistake can turn it into a tactical rout by white... As far as GM vs computers go, computers are _very_ difficult to beat, even by the best GM players. Yes the GMs are significantly stronger, as I still consider normal hardware programs to have just broken into the 2500 territory. But while I know that I can probably drag someone that only weighs 175 pounds up and down the beach using a rope, I know it will be a _real_ struggle and I'm not going to spend a lot of energy with no real reward. I think the humans play with the same sort of semi-determination until real money is at stake. Then suddenly they become supermen... I think Kramnik will likely show this just like the last match did in a way... Although again a 1 point victory is just as good as an 6 point victory and consumes far less mental energy. Some want to look at a 3.5 vs 2.5 result as "nearly equal". It might be. Or the 3.5 player might have been _far_ stronger and simply won the match with the miminum mental effort possible...
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.