M ANSARI wrote:I think you fail to realize how much engines have improved since Kasparov beat Junior ... they have improved tremendously, by maybe 300+ ELO points on equivalent hardware alone. Add to that hardware advances and we are talking about maybe a 400 to 500 ELO swing, now that is a lot.
Engines yes, by 300 Elo, hardware yes, by 200, books by how much? Books do not depend of hardware, and those silly Playchess books are only good for Rybka games, I doubt they would do better than a generic Fritz book against human top GM's. I doubt that any book will create to Kasparov opening problems. He prefigured the strangling of Junior while Junior was still in the book. Books are better today, but by how much?
Kai
Last edited by Laskos on Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Just to avoid crass tactical blunders by humans. Might not be a strong engine helping the human, just an average tactical one. Otherwise you have to handicap the computer, which is again not very interesting.
Just to avoid crass tactical blunders by humans. Might not be a strong engine helping the human, just an average tactical one. Otherwise you have to handicap the computer, which is again not very interesting.
Kai
Trying to setup a "fair"match in which the chess engine isn't handicapped is unrealistic, chess engines are just too powerful for humans today.
Just to avoid crass tactical blunders by humans. Might not be a strong engine helping the human, just an average tactical one. Otherwise you have to handicap the computer, which is again not very interesting.
Kai
tactical blunders is not the reason that humans lose against computers.
You can even allow humans to take back every move when the evaluation of the computer improves by more than 0.3 pawns and I expect the computer to win the match because the computer play better positional moves.
I can add that many drawn human-human games at the high level do not include tactical blunders and the reason that the same humans are more likely to blunder against chess engines is simply that the chess engines can get a positional advantage and it is easier to blunder when the opponent get a positional advantage.
Even some years ago hydra got easily positional advantages against adams and today rybka is stronger than hydra.
Uri Blass wrote:
tactical blunders is not the reason that humans lose against computers.
You can even allow humans to take back every move when the evaluation of the computer improves by more than 0.3 pawns and I expect the computer to win the match because the computer play better positional moves.
Uri
Would you put Kasparov or Kramnik in this position? I bet they will beat Rybka in a 6 game match on any hardware, if they can take back on every jump of >0.3 and 3 times at any time. The reason top humans sometimes go into worse position is the fear of tactical complications against a comp. I am sure top GM's are better positionally (with the aid of a blunder checker).
Just to avoid crass tactical blunders by humans. Might not be a strong engine helping the human, just an average tactical one. Otherwise you have to handicap the computer, which is again not very interesting.
Kai
Human errors happen mostly due to problems with control time.
M ANSARI wrote:I think you fail to realize how much engines have improved since Kasparov beat Junior ... they have improved tremendously, by maybe 300+ ELO points on equivalent hardware alone. Add to that hardware advances and we are talking about maybe a 400 to 500 ELO swing, now that is a lot.
One more thing, a good engine book is actually very strong against humans. Playchess is a site where all sort of ideas were used to try to get engines to play lines that do not fit engine play. This used to work quite well but again with improved hardware and improved software things have also changed in that aspect. If a human is forced to go into an inferior opening to get the engine out of book, chances are that it will backfire on him. Engines today are so strong that a minute plus will be milked into a huge plus very quickly. One tiny misstep and it is game over.
100% agreed with these statements....nothing more to add....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Uri Blass wrote:I can add that many drawn human-human games at the high level do not include tactical blunders and the reason that the same humans are more likely to blunder against chess engines is simply that the chess engines can get a positional advantage and it is easier to blunder when the opponent get a positional advantage.
Even some years ago hydra got easily positional advantages against adams and today rybka is stronger than hydra.
Uri
True....the tactical blunders are based on deep positional misunderstanding....
You reach a positional disadvantage,then you're tacticaly screwed
The know how regards,
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
