bob wrote:
A GM can _way_ out-calculate a computer along sharp tactical lines for the most part,
That is not true for today's hardware and top engines !!!!!.
Matthias.
Easy to say, but programs have a fixed and fairly shallow horizon. GMs sometimes calculate variations to 40-50 plies. Programs don't.
If you mean in correspondence chess, aided by engines, you are right.
Otherwise there is no proof for your claim.
Statistics prove that you are wrong:
if the GMs were that strong, they would not be blundering as frequently as they do in important human-human tournaments.
Just pick _any_ one of such tournaments and count the blunders at _shallow_ depth. There is no way they can calculate variations to 40-50 plies without using engines.
Matthias.
I'm only going to say this one more time and then move on to other topics. Correspondence play in the 1960's and 1970's did _not_ use computers, yet the variations were calculated out to depths that I considered impossible. Berliner had some gems and did _not_ need a computer to help him, since none were available back then.
GMs blunder because they are human, and make mistakes in time pressure, or when distracted, etc. But overall their moves are quite good. Otherwise I guess all the "greatest games" books need to be trashed as too full of blunders to be useful?
This is one of those "impossible to prove" situations so there is little point in continuing the back and forth discussion. You can have the last word. I still believe GM players are far stronger than computers overall in terms of positional play. And in the case of certain types of very deep and forcing tactics. Computers don't miss anything within their search horizon, and this horizon has gotten deep enough that they give GM players great trouble now. A GM can certainly calculate as deep as or deeper than a computer program. But at a cost of mental energy, and eventually fatigue will decide the outcome in many games... it is more a case of the GMs losing than it is a case of the computers winning... and it now happens frequently enough that GMs are beginning to not do very well against computers. Whether they would do better with one game a week is unknown since such an event would take forever.
Bob, don't waste your time with them, they know far more than we do.
That's not polite.
In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing.... You should try to refute their statements instead.
He can't,the truth and the statistical data are obvious for everyone to see....
No more human strategical superiority nonsense,set on the table and prove it,or let one of your GM searching 500 plies ahead do it....
As I said, I have given up trying to explain. I've not said that GMs can beat programs OTB very often, although they can still do it. I have simply explained _how_ the computer is beating the GM. And based on my experience, my reasoning is correct. I've watched it over the years. We started beating GMs at blitz in the late 70's, not because we outplayed them, but we let them make mistakes that turned out to be fatal. Today the same idea is holding on, and it is approaching the point where a GM simply can not play with enough accuracy over a long enough period of time, to hold off the computers. But to say that computers can positionally outplay top GM players is just silly, for anyone with enough chess skill to understand the ideas involved...
A computer is so bad at recognizing weak pawns, weak squares and such. But its tactics carry it anyway...
IM larry kaufman in OTB chess has a different opinion.
"The key to Rybka's strength (and other programs too, though to a lesser degree) is that a decent evaluation after a very deep search will produce better positional play than a super evaluation after a much shallower or narrower search. No practical number of takebacks will change this; the human GM will be outplayed positionally despite his better evaluation, because he cannot possibly compete in the realm of search"
Uri
I don't see how that disagrees with what I wrote at all. "very deep search". That is exactly the issue.
very deep search will produce better positional play
so larry claims that rybka play better positionally than the GM's and
the advantage is not only tactics.
In monority of the cases rybka may make mistakes and the GM may get advantage but usually the computer simply get positional advantage(not material) and win and it is not a case when the GM get positional advantage only to lose later because of tactical errors.
Uri
That is only true to an extent. For example, remove the king safety from any program and see how its "very deep search" prevents it from getting crushed in a long-term kingside attack. Or let the very deep search show it that giving the opponent a queenside (distant) pawn majority at move 20 is going to cause it to lose at move 60.
Tactics (today) can only go so far. Sometimes it will help with weak pawns, sometimes not. Regardless of what Larry says... "sufficient depth" will certainly supplant "positional knowledge". But we are a _long_ way from "sufficient" today...
George Tsavdaris wrote:
In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing....
You should try to refute their statements instead.
Oh God, I must say it:
Terry and Bob are right in this case -- cause they have looked on the other side too unlike you.
They have expirience that you missed -- you, Mathias, Wael (sorry, doc!): experience of knowing GM's in live.
So I can repeat my words from some posts below -- you underestimate grandmasters, guys. You strongly underestimate them.
No
They are simply wrong
Bob said:
"Easy to say, but programs have a fixed and fairly shallow horizon. GMs sometimes calculate variations to 40-50 plies. Programs don't."
This is simply not correct
I believe that
programs calculate variations to 40-50 plies more often then humans.
The claim that program do not calculate sometimes variations to 40-50 plies is wrong.
programs have extensions and the extensions can push them to calculate 40-50 plies.
I believe that GM's do not calculate 40-50 plies forward in most of their games even in their selective search.
Uri
First "sometimes". Means "some part of the time", not "all of the time". In this context, "calculates to 40-50 plies" means "calculates _meaningful_ paths to a depth of 40-50 plies. I didn't give any time constraint, but simply discussed _accurate calculation". And don't give me the "I don't believe it" because I )really_ don't care what you _believe_. This is about what I _know_. I have sat at a table with a GM who was helping us adjudicate a game at an ACM event and Saw him do this in a reasonably complicated endgame position. And when asked "are you sure that is won" he played out the moves on the real board to show his final position. An IM (Mike Valvo and possibly Danny Kopec) would then say something like "what if black plays this here" and he would quickly reel off a series of moves and they would conclude "OK, that is also won".
So that is not speculation.
The fact that programs search to depth 50 on occasion (which I happen to agree with) has nothing to do with this. All of that is wasted effort because no program ever produces a PV in a real game that is 50 moves long. I doubt you can get a 50 move PV in fine #70, for example, where everything is locked up. You might get fairly close maybe.
So believe what you want, it isn't going to affect anyone or anything. Some believe in what humans are capable of, some don't, and most don't even begin to understand what is being discussed. Computers waste 99.99999999999% of their search effort, humans do not. Humans make occasional mistakes in their search space. Many of those just happen to be picked up by the program, but not all.
I'm not even sure why I keep participating in such a pointless discussion...
"no program ever produces a PV in a real game that is 50 moves long."
is probably wrong.
There is a mate in 30 problem that part of the programs can solve by check extension and single reply extension and I do not believe that they never see something like that in games.
It may be interesting to see statistics about the longest pv but non pv lines clearly has an influence on the choice of the program so they are not irrelevant.
Note that 50 plies is more than 40-50 plies so it will be harder to find but I believe not impossible.
In situations when there are important moves to extend it may happen.
I will try to find 50 plies pv from practical game to post it here.
Uri
You did notice I specifically said "in a game"??? Not using Ed's contrived position, a member of the "straightjacket" set of problems where the variation is forced all the way to the end? "real games". Big difference.
George Tsavdaris wrote:
In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing....
You should try to refute their statements instead.
Oh God, I must say it:
Terry and Bob are right in this case -- cause they have looked on the other side too unlike you.
They have expirience that you missed -- you, Mathias, Wael (sorry, doc!): experience of knowing GM's in live.
So I can repeat my words from some posts below -- you underestimate grandmasters, guys. You strongly underestimate them.
No
They are simply wrong
Bob said:
"Easy to say, but programs have a fixed and fairly shallow horizon. GMs sometimes calculate variations to 40-50 plies. Programs don't."
This is simply not correct
I believe that
programs calculate variations to 40-50 plies more often then humans.
The claim that program do not calculate sometimes variations to 40-50 plies is wrong.
programs have extensions and the extensions can push them to calculate 40-50 plies.
I believe that GM's do not calculate 40-50 plies forward in most of their games even in their selective search.
Uri
First "sometimes". Means "some part of the time", not "all of the time". In this context, "calculates to 40-50 plies" means "calculates _meaningful_ paths to a depth of 40-50 plies. I didn't give any time constraint, but simply discussed _accurate calculation". And don't give me the "I don't believe it" because I )really_ don't care what you _believe_. This is about what I _know_. I have sat at a table with a GM who was helping us adjudicate a game at an ACM event and Saw him do this in a reasonably complicated endgame position. And when asked "are you sure that is won" he played out the moves on the real board to show his final position. An IM (Mike Valvo and possibly Danny Kopec) would then say something like "what if black plays this here" and he would quickly reel off a series of moves and they would conclude "OK, that is also won".
So that is not speculation.
The fact that programs search to depth 50 on occasion (which I happen to agree with) has nothing to do with this. All of that is wasted effort because no program ever produces a PV in a real game that is 50 moves long. I doubt you can get a 50 move PV in fine #70, for example, where everything is locked up. You might get fairly close maybe.
So believe what you want, it isn't going to affect anyone or anything. Some believe in what humans are capable of, some don't, and most don't even begin to understand what is being discussed. Computers waste 99.99999999999% of their search effort, humans do not. Humans make occasional mistakes in their search space. Many of those just happen to be picked up by the program, but not all.
I'm not even sure why I keep participating in such a pointless discussion...
´Dr. Hyatt Along this days I ve been reading with interest your posts, and I agreer with you, but I have a Question, you said that GM´s are far better than programs at positional games.. they only lost by tactical mistakes, ok , fews days ago there was a match between a strong GM (Illescas from spain) as you surley know ,Illescas is a good, a Fine positional player even he help to Kramnik some time to prepare for his match for World Championships, Illescas played this match helped by Junior 9 AND EVEN WITH THIS HELP ILLESCAS COULD NOT BEAT JUNIOR 11, according to which you have said, this could had been a easy victory for illescas, would you explain this? why if a GM is FAR better than a stupid program that only search with out plans, could not win??? Maybe is true that once said SMK, "maybe the right way to play chess is the programm´s ways"
Regards
Have you ever heard the old saying "the whole is sometimes greater than the sum of its parts?" Change that (in this case) to "the whole is sometimes _less_ than the sum of its parts. Years ago we had a "cyborg" match at an ACM event, where a human (Dave Slate) used a computer to play a game against David Levy. Slate lost and in the post-game discussion concluded "the interface is so unnatural it probably hurts more than it helps to use a computer." You end up either trusting the computer for almost everything, or you trust your own judgement for almost everything, but you waste time using the thing you don't trust and communication with the computer.
What the match you mentioned proved I have absolutely no idea...
George Tsavdaris wrote:
In a conversation where 2 sides disagree, one side states its arguments and the other answers by trying to refute them and provide better. Etc, and conversation continues.
By saying, like you did, with an ironic way that you know better, and also expecting everyone to agree with what you say is ridiculous.
You can't force everyone to agree with you and if they don't, to start being ironic against them is a bad thing....
You should try to refute their statements instead.
Oh God, I must say it:
Terry and Bob are right in this case -- cause they have looked on the other side too unlike you.
They have expirience that you missed -- you, Mathias, Wael (sorry, doc!): experience of knowing GM's in live.
So I can repeat my words from some posts below -- you underestimate grandmasters, guys. You strongly underestimate them.
No
They are simply wrong
Bob said:
"Easy to say, but programs have a fixed and fairly shallow horizon. GMs sometimes calculate variations to 40-50 plies. Programs don't."
This is simply not correct
I believe that
programs calculate variations to 40-50 plies more often then humans.
The claim that program do not calculate sometimes variations to 40-50 plies is wrong.
programs have extensions and the extensions can push them to calculate 40-50 plies.
I believe that GM's do not calculate 40-50 plies forward in most of their games even in their selective search.
Uri
First "sometimes". Means "some part of the time", not "all of the time". In this context, "calculates to 40-50 plies" means "calculates _meaningful_ paths to a depth of 40-50 plies. I didn't give any time constraint, but simply discussed _accurate calculation". And don't give me the "I don't believe it" because I )really_ don't care what you _believe_. This is about what I _know_. I have sat at a table with a GM who was helping us adjudicate a game at an ACM event and Saw him do this in a reasonably complicated endgame position. And when asked "are you sure that is won" he played out the moves on the real board to show his final position. An IM (Mike Valvo and possibly Danny Kopec) would then say something like "what if black plays this here" and he would quickly reel off a series of moves and they would conclude "OK, that is also won".
So that is not speculation.
The fact that programs search to depth 50 on occasion (which I happen to agree with) has nothing to do with this. All of that is wasted effort because no program ever produces a PV in a real game that is 50 moves long. I doubt you can get a 50 move PV in fine #70, for example, where everything is locked up. You might get fairly close maybe.
So believe what you want, it isn't going to affect anyone or anything. Some believe in what humans are capable of, some don't, and most don't even begin to understand what is being discussed. Computers waste 99.99999999999% of their search effort, humans do not. Humans make occasional mistakes in their search space. Many of those just happen to be picked up by the program, but not all.
I'm not even sure why I keep participating in such a pointless discussion...
´Dr. Hyatt Along this days I ve been reading with interest your posts, and I agreer with you, but I have a Question, you said that GM´s are far better than programs at positional games.. they only lost by tactical mistakes, ok , fews days ago there was a match between a strong GM (Illescas from spain) as you surley know ,Illescas is a good, a Fine positional player even he help to Kramnik some time to prepare for his match for World Championships, Illescas played this match helped by Junior 9 AND EVEN WITH THIS HELP ILLESCAS COULD NOT BEAT JUNIOR 11, according to which you have said, this could had been a easy victory for illescas, would you explain this? why if a GM is FAR better than a stupid program that only search with out plans, could not win??? Maybe is true that once said SMK, "maybe the right way to play chess is the programm´s ways"
Regards
How many games were played
It was 2 games 20´+ 10" Illescas draw the firts without problems but spend a lot of time trying to make junior fall down in positional mistakes, but.. na, the 2 games was almost a DJ11 victory.
Now there's a "statistically valid sample" to use...
Strategy is one of the areas computers are weak at. In 1996, Kasparov crushed Deep Blue in round 6 by demonstrating his superior understanding of pawn play and space advantage. The same was truth about his win against X3D Fritz in this game.
I believe that Kramnik and Kasparov when playing their best chess are stronger than Rybka.
Uri wrote:Strategy is one of the areas computers are weak at. In 1996, Kasparov crushed Deep Blue in round 6 by demonstrating his superior understanding of pawn play and space advantage. The same was truth about his win against X3D Fritz in this game.
I believe that Kramnik and Kasparov when playing their best chess are stronger than Rybka.
Uri wrote:Strategy is one of the areas computers are weak at. In 1996, Kasparov crushed Deep Blue in round 6 by demonstrating his superior understanding of pawn play and space advantage. The same was truth about his win against X3D Fritz in this game.
I believe that Kramnik and Kasparov when playing their best chess are stronger than Rybka.
I think that it is the opposite.
Rybka can lose to kasparov or kramnik when she play her worst chess but usually it does not happen.
There are positions that programs do not know what to do but these positions are minority of the positions and usually humans cannot get these positions from the opening positions.
In most positions programs play positionally better than humans and
even if they lose a game against the best players(I do not claim that it is impossible) the game does not contradict my claim.
Uri wrote:Strategy is one of the areas computers are weak at. In 1996, Kasparov crushed Deep Blue in round 6 by demonstrating his superior understanding of pawn play and space advantage. The same was truth about his win against X3D Fritz in this game.
I believe that Kramnik and Kasparov when playing their best chess are stronger than Rybka.
Of course they are, but weaker players don't understand this. They can't.
no they aren't,Kasparov's butt was kicked so hard by the ancient Fritz 3 running on hardware from the pharaons ages....
_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 wrote:Strategy is one of the areas computers are weak at. In 1996, Kasparov crushed Deep Blue in round 6 by demonstrating his superior understanding of pawn play and space advantage. The same was truth about his win against X3D Fritz in this game.
I believe that Kramnik and Kasparov when playing their best chess are stronger than Rybka.
