ChessUSA.com TalkChess.com
Hosted by Your Move Chess & Games
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top GMs
Post new topic    TalkChess.com Forum Index -> Computer Chess Club: General Topics Flat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jorge Pichard



Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 2558
PostPost subject: Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top    Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:21 pm Reply to topic Reply with quote
Don wrote:
pichy wrote:
Don wrote:
pichy wrote:
jdart wrote:
Endgame play can involve very long-range planning, and computers are still not terribly good at that.

On the other hand, many games, including those at GM level, are decided by mistakes that no modern engine would make.

And many times pre-computer GM analysis of endgames is faulty or incomplete.

--Jon



I agree that many non top GMs make mistakes, but I would put my money on GM Aronian or Kramnik against any of the top 5 engines without Nalimov or any other tablebases to play 6 ending positions in 10 minutes per move. Rolling Eyes


There is no question the top programs are far superior to even the best humans in the overall game and ELO.




I would not say in all stages, ....



Yes, that is what I said too but you cut that part.

Quote:



... the only reason why top engines can easily beat Top GMs is because first they have an intensive opening and in the middlegame they hardly make mistakes;but if you take the tablebase away and present any top engines with 10 positions played by lets say Capablanca vs Alekhine or Tarrasch vs Thorold or GM Kramnik versus Kasparov and provide the engine and Kramnik or Aronian with 10 minutes per move the GM will definitively beat the top engine provided that the position are equal in material.



There is no single "only reason" - there are many reasons now that computers are superior. The top computers now just outplay the top Grandmasters period. I have played over many games of top Grandmasters (using Komodo or other programs) and what I see is that the one or both players make what the computer considers a slightly weak move, the score drops a little but not fatally, but then it happens again, and then again and pretty soon it's a lost game. In general it will be several inaccuracies. In many game the winning player returns the favor with inaccuracies of his own but sooner or later one of the players prevails.


You played over many games with top Grandmasters versus Komodo and you probably noticed that by the time the game has reached the endgame stage Komodo has already a won position due to the tactical superiority of your engines, and the rest of the game should be very easy for Komodo, but what you have not done is to give Komodo several positions that were played by great endgame players like Capablanca or Tarrasch where the position is equal and match those endgame positions against top GM like Kramnik or GM Aronian providing ten minute per move to avoid losing by a blunder since most endgames blunders by top GMs were caused due to time trouble when the players that blundered was running out of time.



It used to be said that computers are all about "tactics", but tactics is really a human term which to generalize a bit means they "don't miss anything within their horizon" and these days tactics is also positional play. An opportunity to make a pawn slightly weaker is not "tactics" or "combination play" in the traditional sense but it is what computers do much better than humans. Or it could be "combination" to free a cramped position that the human missed. Humans are still superior in "understanding" what cannot be seen or directly computed but that doesn't buy much any longer.

As far as openings are concerned, modern opening theory is based a LOT on computer analysis, and a couple of centuries of human analysis do not provide much that computers cannot figure out for themselves in seconds or even less than a second. And humans would be poor in the opening if they didn't study and memorize opening like crazy, so I see no justification for considering that computers should be forbidden to consider in advance what they should play while thinking that is natural for humans to do. How is that reasonable?

Quote:


Databases make very little difference in the strength of the programs. At best perhaps a tiny boost, but there is a school of thought that they play worse with databases too due to overheads and such.

I can present you with more than 10 positions played by Capablanca or alekhine, or any other top endgame elite where the engine don't not select the correct move withouth using tablebases.


Of course you can cherry pick positions like this, but the only thing that matters is the complete game. If you could start human/computer matches from positions which human understand better of course you will find that humans will do better.

Nobody questions the fact that computers have certain weaknesses. Even Larry who is very pro-computer says in closed positions computers play like weak club players. What you fail to consider is that one could take some other subset of the game and make a very strong case that humans cannot play chess very well and computers will put them to shame because they have too many weaknesses. It would be just as valid to say that. But none of it really matters except actual results.

I cannot help but think of the Monty Python "Life of Brian" movie where one of the characters cried, "what have the Romans ever done for us?" His buddy said, "well they did make a difference with the crime rate", then it was "other than the crime, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Then it was the sanitation, the roads, etc. Finally he had to say, "other than the roads, the sanitation system, the crime, the aqueduct, education, irrigation system, medicine, clean water, WHAT HAVE THE ROMANS EVER DONE FOR US?"

This reminds me of that because you are systematically claiming that the only reason computers are better is because of the very things they are good at, and yet that it's somehow not relevant. Oh sure, if you take away the book, the endgame databases, the human errors, limit the game to positions humans are better at, give humans 10 minutes per move, THEN LET'S SEE HOW WELL THE COMPUTER DO!!! Is there any other advantages you want to take away from computers to prove they are actually inferior?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Subject Author Date/Time
Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top GMs Jorge Pichard Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
      Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Jon Dart Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:51 pm
            Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Jorge Pichard Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:10 pm
                  Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Jon Dart Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:33 pm
                  Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Don Dailey Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:48 pm
                        Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Jorge Pichard Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:59 pm
                              Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Norm Pollock Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:18 pm
                                    Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Don Dailey Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:44 pm
                              Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Don Dailey Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:27 pm
                                    Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Rein Halbersma Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:00 pm
                                    Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Jorge Pichard Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:21 pm
                        Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Lonnie Cook Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:40 am
      Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Robert Houdart Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:18 pm
            Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Maurizio Maglio Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:32 pm
                  Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Maurizio Maglio Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:45 pm
            Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Terry McCracken Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:56 pm
                  Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Robert Houdart Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:12 pm
                        Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Don Dailey Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:20 pm
                              Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Terry McCracken Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:27 pm
                                    Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Seb Dragulic Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:41 pm
                                          Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Terry McCracken Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:45 pm
                              Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Maurizio Maglio Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:44 pm
                                    Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Don Dailey Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:18 am
                                          Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Maurizio Maglio Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:48 am
                                          Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Jorge Pichard Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:49 am
                                          Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Ron Langeveld Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:44 pm
                                                Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Don Dailey Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:59 pm
                                                      Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top George Speight Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:23 pm
                                                            Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Jorge Pichard Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:32 pm
                                                                  Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Don Dailey Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:48 pm
                                                                        Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Don Dailey Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:29 pm
                                                            Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Don Dailey Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:38 pm
                                                                  Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top George Speight Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:09 pm
                                                                        Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Jorge Pichard Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:21 pm
                                                                              Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Don Dailey Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:00 pm
                                                                                    Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Marek Kwiatkowski Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:09 pm
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Don Dailey Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:20 pm
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Marek Kwiatkowski Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:43 pm
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Jorge Pichard Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:37 pm
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Don Dailey Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:26 pm
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Marek Kwiatkowski Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:59 pm
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Terry McCracken Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:06 pm
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Marek Kwiatkowski Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:02 pm
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Don Dailey Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:44 pm
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Don Dailey Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:18 am
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Jorge Pichard Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:11 am
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Uri Zlatnik Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:33 am
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Uri Zlatnik Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:34 am
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Uri Zlatnik Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:34 am
                                                                                          Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Terry McCracken Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:45 am
                                                                                          Re: You don't have to be a super GM to beat top engines..... Jorge Pichard Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:22 am
                                                                                          Re: You don't have to be a super GM to beat top engines..... Don Dailey Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:08 am
                                                                                          Re: You don't have to be a super GM to beat top engines..... Don Dailey Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:50 pm
                                                                                          Re: You don't have to be a super GM to beat top engines..... Jorge Pichard Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:06 pm
                                                                                          Re: You don't have to be a super GM to beat top engines..... Don Dailey Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:34 pm
                                                                                          Re: You don't have to be a super GM to beat top engines..... Don Dailey Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:34 pm
                                                                                          Re: You don't have to be a super GM to beat top engines..... Don Dailey Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:39 pm
                                                                                          Re: You don't have to be a super GM to beat top engines..... Marek Kwiatkowski Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:53 pm
                                                                                          Re: You don't have to be a super GM to beat top engines..... Don Dailey Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:08 pm
                                                                                          Re: You don't have to be a super GM to beat top engines..... Don Dailey Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:29 pm
                                                                                          Re: You don't have to be a super GM to beat top engines..... Marek Kwiatkowski Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:44 pm
                                                                                          Re: Who play the ending better Houdini or Komodo without TB Jorge Pichard Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:05 pm
                                                                                          Re: Who play the ending better Houdini or Komodo without TB Don Dailey Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:57 am
                                                                                          Re: Who play the ending better Houdini or Komodo without TB Jorge Pichard Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:08 pm
                                                                                          Re: Certain engines still can not evaluate as good as a GM Jorge Pichard Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:36 pm
                                                                                    Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Jorge Pichard Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:27 pm
                                                                                    Re: Time to test Komodo with endgames positions............. Maurizio Maglio Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:38 pm
                                                                        Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Don Dailey Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:34 pm
                              Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Seb Dragulic Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:49 pm
                                    Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Maurizio Maglio Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:53 pm
                                          Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Seb Dragulic Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:57 pm
                                                Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Maurizio Maglio Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:05 pm
                                                      Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Seb Dragulic Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:20 pm
                                                            Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Maurizio Maglio Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:27 pm
                                                                  Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Seb Dragulic Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:34 pm
                                    Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Don Dailey Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:20 am
                                          Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Seb Dragulic Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:26 am
                        Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Seb Dragulic Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:22 pm
                        Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Maurizio Maglio Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:22 pm
                        Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Terry McCracken Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:29 pm
      Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Mike Scheidl Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:58 am
            Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Jorge Pichard Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:04 am
                  Re: Top engines without tablebases don't play as good as top Mike Scheidl Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:44 am
Post new topic    TalkChess.com Forum Index -> Computer Chess Club: General Topics

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Enhanced with Moby Threads