Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:54:37 05/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2002 at 21:16:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On May 21, 2002 at 20:26:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >For me nobody knows the _resulting_ Elo numbers. My assumption is a result of >statistical experience and knowledge about performances of groups of intelligent >persons. Just think for a moment of Los Alamos. I take the actual depth of the >best programs and found 2200-2350 a nice mark. I take for granted that everybody >knows that Elo is performance over a period of time in a certain pool. I said >thought experiment. > > >>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... > >Yes, although these days are gone. The overall depth of a computer would cause >real problems for David Levy! Just if you think a player on his own. But my >experiment said that a whole group of chessplayers studied a completely _new_ >chess, the one against computers. > >Let me offer a second thought experiment: Let's take players like Kramnik. Just >two or three. If they got enough money, you know what these three could achieve >- as a group? They would dump FRITZ and Co. into a hell of 2300 or below! If >enough money at stake and whatever institutions have stated "We want the real >results, not just draws, we want to see what is possible!" Why 2300? Simply >because for these guys the depth of the actual commercial programs is a moot >argument. > >So, let me repeat please. I do not intend to say, your 2500, or the other 2700 >is nonsense, no, I want to lead the attention to some important aspects that >normally nobody is talking about. Strength is too often simply a static >construct. But of course it's totally relative. And as a consequence, the >results of today's events are _not_ absolute signals but only statistical >results on the basis of a cluster of factors. We could also say, results are too >often seen as 1-dimensional. > > >>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... > >Did you know that you are one of very very few who are thinking about such >factors? Thinking and talking about. I don't think so. _several_ have mentioned "motivation" repeatedly. It takes a lot of motivation to go out and do something that is very difficult. Such as trying to push a computer off the board. You only have to look at the last Deep Blue vs Kasparov match to see just how difficult Kasparov found the match to be. If the absolute most weight you can lift is 500 pounds, you will find that going out many times and lifting 499 pounds is a _very_ difficult task to mentally prepare for, unless the reward is significant enough to make it worthwhile. > > >>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... > >Yes, nice differentiations. My weakness is that I see _only_ such variations, >because nothing is just black and white. At the same time I have the unsolved >problem, why chessplayers or chess lovers or computerchess knowies often become >nervous when variations are presented, although chess at the first move already >is a game of more than two stable alternatives... > >Science is even broader. :) > >Rolf Tueschen
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.