Human vs computer

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: Harvey Williamson, bob, hgm

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.

When did computer pass human at classical 40 moves/2h game?

Poll ended at Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:43 pm

1997 or before
6
11%
1998
1
2%
1999
1
2%
2000
1
2%
2001
0
No votes
2003
1
2%
2004
11
20%
2005
17
31%
2006
3
6%
2007 or later
13
24%
 
Total votes: 54

Terry McCracken
Posts: 16225
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Canada

Re: Human vs computer

Post by Terry McCracken » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:05 pm

mhull wrote:1997 (at the super-computer level) marked the end. IMHO, stamina and deep tactical accuracy alone would have worn down any human opponent had DB-2 played on in human tournaments and matches, especially had the DB-2 team actually been allowed to finish the DB-2 project. The version that defeated Kasparov was not actually complete in terms of all the features they had planned for the match. As it was, the machine's power shocked Kasparov, deflating his once indefatigable ego.

Game over, 1997.
No one knows that. Kasparov defeated himself. Game 2 was a draw and Kasparov suffered chess blindness due to his psychological state. Another player would likely have played 45..Qe3!!=.

It was too soon.
Terry McCracken

jplchess
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:13 am

Re: Human vs computer (3 variables)

Post by jplchess » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:54 pm

Correct me if I am wrong:
The x axis is time (like year 2000)
The y axis is software (efficiency or no variable units)
The z axis is hardware (speed)

It depends on those 3 variables.
As efficiency improved over time, the hardware was becoming slower or (more accessible and cheaper) for the common person to replicate a supercomputer before the year 2000.

The hardware was about slightly pre 2000.
The software was about post 2005.

Remember this does not include closed games (pawn structure).
Just my 2 cents worth,
Jonathan Lee

User avatar
mhull
Posts: 13264
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas
Full name: Matthew Hull

Re: Human vs computer

Post by mhull » Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:06 pm

Terry McCracken wrote:
mhull wrote:1997 (at the super-computer level) marked the end. IMHO, stamina and deep tactical accuracy alone would have worn down any human opponent had DB-2 played on in human tournaments and matches, especially had the DB-2 team actually been allowed to finish the DB-2 project. The version that defeated Kasparov was not actually complete in terms of all the features they had planned for the match. As it was, the machine's power shocked Kasparov, deflating his once indefatigable ego.

Game over, 1997.
No one knows that. Kasparov defeated himself. Game 2 was a draw and Kasparov suffered chess blindness due to his psychological state. Another player would likely have played 45..Qe3!!=.

It was too soon.
Of course there is game 2, but it's more interesting to read the comments made by GM Benjamin who had played the monster more than Kasparov. And even this brief match demonstrated the overwhelming machine advantage of accuracy and stamina. No human would have a chance in a long match. I have little doubt had it participated in a high category round robin like Tilburg, it would have ripped the field to pieces. JMO.
Matthew Hull

Terry McCracken
Posts: 16225
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Canada

Re: Human vs computer

Post by Terry McCracken » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:18 am

mhull wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote:
mhull wrote:1997 (at the super-computer level) marked the end. IMHO, stamina and deep tactical accuracy alone would have worn down any human opponent had DB-2 played on in human tournaments and matches, especially had the DB-2 team actually been allowed to finish the DB-2 project. The version that defeated Kasparov was not actually complete in terms of all the features they had planned for the match. As it was, the machine's power shocked Kasparov, deflating his once indefatigable ego.

Game over, 1997.
No one knows that. Kasparov defeated himself. Game 2 was a draw and Kasparov suffered chess blindness due to his psychological state. Another player would likely have played 45..Qe3!!=.

It was too soon.
Of course there is game 2, but it's more interesting to read the comments made by GM Benjamin who had played the monster more than Kasparov. And even this brief match demonstrated the overwhelming machine advantage of accuracy and stamina. No human would have a chance in a long match. I have little doubt had it participated in a high category round robin like Tilburg, it would have ripped the field to pieces. JMO.
I don't disagree with that but you know what I mean.
Terry McCracken

bbbaro25us

Re: Human vs computer

Post by bbbaro25us » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:42 pm

Kasparov's human move (or interference or whatever) is a different topic, for me: paranoia seems fitting better then ego as a partial motive, and Chess geniuses probably can only learn to live with it.

But for the other one, I don't think it's annoying, for human players or human programmers, as it's a legitimate point of view.

Anyway by the most voted 2005, K himself, after retirement or during it obviously, assessed machines as impossible to beat for humans. And just like any normal sundays' chess player asked for chess engines with a more human charachter, with a "thinking process" less dependent on brute force calculation.

sedicla
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:51 pm
Location: USA

Re: Human vs computer

Post by sedicla » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:58 pm

For me the man vs machine in chess is pretty much the same comparison of man vs car racing. Usain Bolt can't beat a car in a race by foot. We accept that and still we have interessting man only and car only competitions.

I think computer chess is going to be the same. Soon would be just impossible to beat computers games. Like a marathon runner simply can't prepare for a race by studying the car races like Formula 1, Nascar or Rallies.

Audmeister
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:38 am

Re: Human vs computer

Post by Audmeister » Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:05 pm

Game sent to me from a friend... Gigabot running Houdini with decent hardware.. Game was blitz 5+0 I believe


Multivers (2586) - Gigabot (2805)
ICS rated blitz match freechess.org, 18.09.2011
[12... +0.16]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 e6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Re1 d6 8.e4 a6 9.d4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Qc7 11.Be3 Nbd7 12.f4 h5 +0.16/18 8 13.h3 Rc8 +0.13/17 8 14.Rc1 0-0 +0.05/18 8 15.Bf2 Rfd8 +0.00/17 7 16.Qd2 Re8 -0.05/18 7 17.b3 Qb8 +0.00/17 5 18.Bf3 Rcd8 -0.04/16 7 19.Kg2 Ne5 +0.00/18 8 20.Bd1 Qc8 +0.00/18 5 21.Nf3 Ned7 -0.05/19 1.6 22.Ng5 a5 -0.05/18 2.3 23.Bf3 Nc5 -0.10/18 2.7 24.Qc2 h4 -0.16/17 7 25.gxh4 Nfd7 -0.20/16 1.7 26.Bg4 Nf6 -0.18/17 5 27.Bd1 Qb8 -0.09/16 17 28.Bf3 Nfd7 -0.07/18 29.Bg4 Nf8 -0.11/17 3 30.Bh5 g6 +0.02/14 31.Bg4 Qc8 -0.05/16 4 32.Bd1 Qc7 -0.09/14 5 33.a3 d5 -0.47/15 4 34.cxd5 f6 -0.68/15 0.7 35.Nf3 Qxf4 -0.56/14 0.4 36.Be3 Qb8 -0.56/16 5 37.b4 axb4 -0.49/16 6 38.axb4 Ncd7 -0.43/17 20 39.Qb1 Bd6 -0.52/16 4 40.Ba4 exd5 -0.66/14 4 41.exd5 b5 -0.62/15 1.8 42.Bxb5 Bxd5 -0.66/17 3 43.Nxd5 Qxb5 -0.74/18 16 44.Rcd1 Kh8 -0.73/17 2.3 45.h5 gxh5 -1.04/14 3 46.Qf5 Nh7 -1.24/16 47.Qxh5 Rg8+ -1.56/16 1.3 48.Kh1 Qc6 -1.62/16 1.6 49.b5 Qa8 -2.17/17 9 50.b6 Rg3 -2.24/17 0.5 51.Bf2 Rg7 -2.56/18 10 52.Bh4 Rf8 -2.57/19 53.Nc7 Bxc7 -3.02/16 2.2 54.bxc7 Qc8 -3.02/18 1.2 55.Rc1 Rfg8 -3.40/19 6 56.Rc2 Rf8 -4.13/18 7 57.Rg1 Re7 -4.23/19 1.6 58.Qh6 Qb7 -6.99/16 6 59.Rg3 Rc8 -6.74/15 1.8 60.Re2 Qb1+ -7.28/18 61.Ng1 Qb7+ -7.85/17 2.8 62.Reg2 Qe4 -10.79/19 7 63.Ne2 Qb1+ -15.68/14 1.6 64.Kh2 Qf5 -29.05/16 2.7 65.Nf4 Ne5 -29.05/16 3 66.Nd5 Qg5 -99.72/14 0.8 67.Bxg5 fxg5 -99.86/24 68.Nxe7 Nf7 -99.88/28 69.Qe6 Kg7 -99.90/33 70.Nf5+ Kg8 -99.92/99 71.Rxg5+ Nhxg5 -99.94/16 72.Rxg5+ Kh7 -99.96/99 73.Qxf7+ Kh8 -99.98/99 74.Rh5# Gigabot checkmated 1-0

Post Reply