When did the Computer Surpass Man?

mschribr · Post by **mschribr** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:55 am

I am taking a poll when the computer surpassed man in standard timed games? I tried to give every year from 1997 to the present as choice. But that was too many choices. So I made some choices as multiple years. If that compromised the poll then give your opinion without voting.

I think this was first demonstrated in 2006 when fritz beat world champion Kramnik. Not just because fritz won but also because of the assistance given to Kramnik and the computer player was 2nd rate.

swami · Post by **swami** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:45 am

Not exactly on stage, But I'd guess that strongest engine on 2003-2004 surpassed the GM's if the games played by them at the time were any indications.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:38 pm

The small number of games makes it hard to be sure, but I picked 2005 because that was when the Hydra-Adams match took place.

Bill Rogers · Post by **Bill Rogers** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 7:39 pm

I am not sure of the year but I voted for the time a computer beat David Levy.
Bill

S.Taylor · Post by **S.Taylor** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:25 pm

After my vote ("not yet"), I see that 3 times have recieved 22% of the total.
*1997-1999
*2006
*not yet.

They are all right in different ways.

1997-1999 is right because firstly, that was a good demonstration match with DB and Kasparov, but also around that time, top GM's were begining to feel rather please with themselves every time they won a game vs a computer. It was no longer a given.

2006 because of Rybka, as well as repeated world champions being unable to win a match, And Rybka blew away THOSE engines too.

"Not yet", because, human wisdom can still do it. If the 5 greatest anti-computer experts (Anand etc) were to play the top computer with the top set-up, 6 games each, or so, and with the GM being given time to analyse, and check up for errors (withOUT) computer aid, then atleast ONE of those top 5 would win his match, if not all of them.
Anand, for example, if he were given time to analyse, but was not allowed to see a computer during the few days for each game. Anand would have time to check there are no mistakes. And then, his strategies would win.

When a computer simply baffles the analisys of the top world champions, THEN, computer would have overtaken human.

This may be by Rybka 5 or 6. (assuming nothing will be stronger now than Rybka)

However, in many ways, Rybka 3 is as good as anything already. But there still are positions which humans are superior in.

S.Taylor · Post by **S.Taylor** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:31 pm

Now, the second two have gone own to 21% and the first one has gone up to 26% (maybe one person made this happen!). But this is not really right!
Just because of what happened with Kasarov and deep blue, in one stupid last game, is not any proof.

james uselton · Post by **james uselton** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:54 pm

Well, DB surpassed the World's Champion in 97'---that has to be the turning point!

When a machine put the fear of God into Kasparov---Got to be the turning point. Wasnt Kasparov always a little gun-shy (with machines) after 97'?

glorfindel · Post by **glorfindel** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:11 pm

Not really. After studying the games, I came to the conclusion that Kasparov was superior in 1997, but he lost mainly because of physchological weakness. The same weakness which he also suffered in his match against Kramnik, the weakness and the surprise when you realize that your opponent is stronger than you thought he would be. But this does not mean he is actually stronger than you (although I tend to believe that in the second case, Kramnik was indeed stronger). This weakness was in my opinion obvious in the last game of the match.

Also, since we are in this forum and theoretically we all know that many games are needed to determine who is stronger, I could add that winning a match with 3.5-2.5 does not mean you have surpassed your opponent.

Finally, I am surprised you say Kasparov was "gun-shy" after this match. It is well known he immediately requested a rematch, and IBM was the one to refuse.

oppiet30 · Post by **oppiet30** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:27 am

My answer isn't even listed.
I thought computer beat man back in the 80's.
But I will have to finish reading this book.
"How Computers Play Chess" by David Levy and Monty Newborn.

james uselton · Post by **james uselton** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:45 am

Kinda reminds me of Capablanca v Alekhine. Capablanca kept asking for a rematch but did he really want one? There is some doubt about his sincerity. The same can be said for Kasparov---I think he pretty much knew there would be no rematch and he could probably say whatever he wanted to and into which many people would buy.

He was psyched-out and scared in that rematch with Deep Blue. He resigned the second game (which was in actuality drawn) and suffered the shortest loss of his career in game 6 (19 moves).

In this confrontation, the machine was superior.

Bye