Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 9th 06, 12:52 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 30
Default A missed future???

I don't know if anyone noticed, but Fritz did an amazing thing in Game
6. It came up with a novelty, and a different way of approaching a
setup, than had been considered by anyone "human" to date.

The moves were "wrong", they were mocked by experts live (giggling
happened), and ultimately proved correct.

This should give everyone the chills.

The worry is that lack of interest will mean that humans will not be
willing to learn from the machines.

Nobody pays attention to what happens in machine vs machine matches.
And nobody who uses these machines will uncover these new ways of
playing a position. They just blindly record the score.

What is unique about a machine/human match like this, is that we care,
people care, grandmasters care about what was played. About how a
position is managed by the players.

In game 6, this wasn't a blunder by a human. This wasn't an obvious
thing that an expert would do. The earth shook a little. A machine
had a different way of looking at a problem, and came up with a
different, yet correct answer. THAT IS FREAKING AMAZING. Not that
Kramnik lost. That is not nearly as amazing. It was the WAY that he lost.

We should have more events like this. The machines have more to teach
us. If we care.
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 9th 06, 02:42 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 28
Default A missed future???

While I don't share your astonishment (because I take it for granted
that machines are way better than humans at chess, far more innovative,
and are the future of chess whether anyone admits it or not), I agree
with your basic premise.

A few points. First, impressive as DF10 was against Kramnik, all the
rating lists will soon indicate that Rybka 2.2 mp 64-bit is at least
100 ELO points stronger on comparable hardware. (Preliminary results
indicate this; I think DF10 will make the first list this weekend.) It
plays at over 3000 ELO.

Computers already play totally counterintuitive and inexplicable moves
that lead inexorably to mate. People have started on 7-man tablebases
that have produced positions that result in mate in over 200 moves
(apart from the 50-move rule). I defy any GM to see the logic in the
moves that force such long-distance mates.

Finally, on innovation, it's very simple to create brand-new theory.
Lately I've been seeing some serious possibilities in 1.h3, which looks
like a silly patzer move, but in reality is just as sound as 1.e4. One
move is as miraculous as the next; brilliant combinations happen all
the time between machines; they just aren't noticed. Someday they will
be, because the self-evident superiority of computers cannot be denied
or ignored much longer.

  #3   Report Post  
Old December 9th 06, 03:46 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2005
Posts: 589
Default A missed future???

wrote in message
ups.com...
While I don't share your astonishment (because I take it for granted
that machines are way better than humans at chess, far more innovative,
and are the future of chess whether anyone admits it or not), I agree
with your basic premise.

A few points. First, impressive as DF10 was against Kramnik, all the
rating lists will soon indicate that Rybka 2.2 mp 64-bit is at least
100 ELO points stronger on comparable hardware. (Preliminary results
indicate this; I think DF10 will make the first list this weekend.) It
plays at over 3000 ELO.

Computers already play totally counterintuitive and inexplicable moves
that lead inexorably to mate. People have started on 7-man tablebases
that have produced positions that result in mate in over 200 moves
(apart from the 50-move rule). I defy any GM to see the logic in the
moves that force such long-distance mates.

Finally, on innovation, it's very simple to create brand-new theory.
Lately I've been seeing some serious possibilities in 1.h3, which looks
like a silly patzer move, but in reality is just as sound as 1.e4. One
move is as miraculous as the next; brilliant combinations happen all
the time between machines; they just aren't noticed. Someday they will
be, because the self-evident superiority of computers cannot be denied
or ignored much longer.


I agree with you and Johnny. From time to time there are discussions in the
chess newsgroups about computer play. Most posters believe the nonsense they
hear about the inferiority of 'computer moves' and how computers can't play
creatively, etc. Hogwash. They're stronger than anyone at this point.

You're right, but I'm not sure the Kramnik match was a good barometer. Vlad
overlooked a mate in one, and in the last game had nothing to lose so went
all-out. Take away the one-mover and this match is a draw.


  #4   Report Post  
Old December 10th 06, 05:40 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 13
Default A missed future???

In article ,
says...
wrote in message
ups.com...
While I don't share your astonishment (because I take it for granted
that machines are way better than humans at chess, far more innovative,
and are the future of chess whether anyone admits it or not), I agree
with your basic premise.

A few points. First, impressive as DF10 was against Kramnik, all the
rating lists will soon indicate that Rybka 2.2 mp 64-bit is at least
100 ELO points stronger on comparable hardware. (Preliminary results
indicate this; I think DF10 will make the first list this weekend.) It
plays at over 3000 ELO.

Computers already play totally counterintuitive and inexplicable moves
that lead inexorably to mate. People have started on 7-man tablebases
that have produced positions that result in mate in over 200 moves
(apart from the 50-move rule). I defy any GM to see the logic in the
moves that force such long-distance mates.

Finally, on innovation, it's very simple to create brand-new theory.
Lately I've been seeing some serious possibilities in 1.h3, which looks
like a silly patzer move, but in reality is just as sound as 1.e4. One
move is as miraculous as the next; brilliant combinations happen all
the time between machines; they just aren't noticed. Someday they will
be, because the self-evident superiority of computers cannot be denied
or ignored much longer.


I agree with you and Johnny. From time to time there are discussions in the
chess newsgroups about computer play. Most posters believe the nonsense they
hear about the inferiority of 'computer moves' and how computers can't play
creatively, etc. Hogwash. They're stronger than anyone at this point.

You're right, but I'm not sure the Kramnik match was a good barometer. Vlad
overlooked a mate in one, and in the last game had nothing to lose so went
all-out. Take away the one-mover and this match is a draw.



I agree that this wasn't the proper barometer to showing the difference
between the human against computer in chess. It artificially insulated
Kramnik from losing badly because he could rely on book theory. Take
away that comfort zone by throwing the World Champion to the wolves with
a Fischer Random match against Rybka and THEN we can judge just how good
or bad humans are against the computer. Let me give you a hint...GM
Radjabov tried to be really "cute" against the computer using Fischer
Random rules by simply "rearranging" the pieces to get a familiar
structure he knew. GM Radjabov was promptly crushed in less than 20
moves.

Someone asked former World Champion Gary Kasparov if he'd play a
computer using Fischer Random rules. He said no because the computer
would simply outcalculate him tactically. Huh? I thought it was commonly
said that human "intuition" made up for the advantage computers have
with their calculating ability.
  #5   Report Post  
Old December 10th 06, 11:37 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 179
Default A missed future???

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 05:40:48 GMT, DorothyFan1
wrote:


Someone asked former World Champion Gary Kasparov if he'd play a
computer using Fischer Random rules. He said no because the computer
would simply outcalculate him tactically. Huh? I thought it was commonly
said that human "intuition" made up for the advantage computers have
with their calculating ability.


That human intution consists mostly of pattern recognition and
memorization of openings and themes. Scramble the starting position,
and a large amount of those patterns and themes are suddenly
invalidated. No more charging the h pawn towards the enemy king in
order to open up the file for the unmoved rook behind it, because now
the rooks start on b1 and c1. No more comfort from playing your
favorite Sicilian variation. The loss of that sort of stuff doesn't
faze the computer, because it always calculates anew, in the same
fashion, no matter what the position. Those fleshbags that call
themselves humans don't stand a chance.

Tony


  #6   Report Post  
Old December 11th 06, 10:01 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default A missed future???

wrote:
A few points. First, impressive as DF10 was against Kramnik, all
the rating lists will soon indicate that Rybka 2.2 mp 64-bit is at
least 100 ELO points stronger on comparable hardware. (Preliminary
results indicate this; I think DF10 will make the first list this
weekend.)


But these ratings are only from computer-computer games. While it's
likely that Rybka's ability to beat other computers will translate
into an ability to beat GMs, it's not guaranteed.


It plays at over 3000 ELO.


Note that this rating is not directly comparable with FIDE's rating
list. Saying `Rybka is 3000 Elo' is like saying that the size of
something is `150, measured with a tape measure'.


Finally, on innovation, it's very simple to create brand-new theory.
Lately I've been seeing some serious possibilities in 1.h3, which
looks like a silly patzer move, but in reality is just as sound as
1.e4.


Well, intuitively, playing 1.h3 shouldn't be significantly worse than
playing Black and playing Black doesn't appear to be a forced loss
right now. (It might be slightly worse as it weakens the kingside a
little.)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Transparent Atom Bomb (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a weapon of mass destruction but you
can see right through it!
  #7   Report Post  
Old December 11th 06, 10:04 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,598
Default A missed future???

Tony M wrote:
DorothyFan1 wrote:
Someone asked former World Champion Gary Kasparov if he'd play a
computer using Fischer Random rules. [...]


That human intution consists mostly of pattern recognition and
memorization of openings and themes. Scramble the starting
position, and a large amount of those patterns and themes are
suddenly invalidated. No more charging the h pawn towards the enemy
king in order to open up the file for the unmoved rook behind it,
because now the rooks start on b1 and c1.


Actually, the rooks can't start on b1 and c1 because, in FRC, the king
has start to be between the two rooks. (And the bishops must be on
different coloured squares.) But the main thrust of your point still
stands.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Moistened Lotion (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ soothing hand lotion but it's moist!
  #9   Report Post  
Old December 12th 06, 03:01 AM posted to rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 28
Default A missed future???


johnny T wrote:
wrote:


What is the ELO value of hardware? How has it improved over time.


These websites will help you quantify that.

http://www.sedatchess.com/hardware.html
http://www.jens.tauchclub-krems.at/d...enchmarks.html

A few things you ought to consider.

1. 64-bit chess engines add about 70% speed over 32-bit.
2. Going from 2 to 4 to 8 processors doesn't translate into comparable
speed improvements. Different multi-processor chess engines scale up
differently, but none of them scales 1:1. Typically the more
processors, the less efficiently that power increments. So you might
get 4x the speed of a single-thread machine with an octo. It varies.
3. Each absolute doubling of speed (in real terms) is worth 60-75 ELO
points. Or rather, it has historically. As we get into ever-stronger
hardware, software becomes critical, because search pruning becomes
increasingly more important than absolute processing speed. So my rule
of thumb may not hold much longer.
4. Of course, if you can afford to overclock and you know what you're
doing, there's a quick way to add another 10-20% in speed. (Some
people even do better, but the cooling methods get increasingly more
extreme and expensive, not really worth it when processors keep
improving so quickly.)

All the above assumes no other factors influencing results: opening
book, tablebases, etc.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future Fide Chess One rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 4 December 4th 06 08:20 PM
The future of Correspondence Chess? KDP rec.games.chess.play-by-email (Chess - Play by Email) 2 May 1st 06 01:04 PM
Future World Chess Champion Jennifer Shahade Ray Gordon rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 February 19th 06 12:45 AM
Future World Chess Champion Jennifer Shahade Ray Gordon rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 26 February 18th 06 12:26 AM
Future World Chess Champion Jennifer Shahade Andrew Zito rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 February 11th 06 04:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017