premio53 wrote: Kaskavel wrote:
nippersean wrote:Well my thoughts - if a computer can beat Kasparov, then they have an outside chance of beating GLG.
Seriously, with enough resources a program would beat (be better) than everyone at this game. Without a doubt.
It is far more difficult to assess a chess position at the end of the algorithm than to calculate a 6 player KO. Always when the machine comes to the end of brute force it will have to assess who is better. This is way more difficicult in chess than it is in CC.
Difference is IBM unlikely to spend $1Bn+ on a CC program. I think it's rather silly to say CC / risk is more complex than chess.
It is not accurate to state that strongest computer defeats strongest human in chess at this point of history. In all the 3 last matchs played (the one Kasparov won 3.5-2.5, the one Kasparov lost 3.5-2.5 and the last one Kramnik lost 3.5-2.5), the human player managed to win at least one game. And the last match was 2.5-2.5, about to end in a tie with the last game being a completely drawn position when Kramnik made a remarkable mistake for his level (blundering checkmate in one move) which is made once or twice in a lifetime for such a strong player. Anyway, the point is that computers have a stable level of performance in all games, calculating millions of moves. Humans do not. A single mistake will lead to defeat against machines. But if on their best performance, strongest human chess players can still defeat computers, which means both not making mistakes AND playing superior strategy, this means computers have not bypassed humans yet. At least for a few more years, lol
The strongest human chess players are rated around 2800 elo. The top chess playing programs are now over 3200. The world chess champion would not stand a chane now. Chess Grandmasters no longer play against chess computers in matches because there is no point in it. They use computers to help prepare for matches against other humans.
Probably, but that was not my point. My point is that although computers have a superior average performance, humans can still prevail in a game they show their top performance. Which in turn means that computers still make critical mistakes, at least in some kind of positions. Computers do not blunder, they have a stable performance at the rating you say, but humans' performance vary greatly, mainly because of the chance to find or miss critical tactics. And apparently they can still defeat computers in isolated games, although not in a match probably, when they perform their best. The next stage of computer evolution is the day we will have to accept that humans have 0% chance to defeat a computer in a single game and that computers do not make mistakes. At least not significant ones that could lead to a loss.
Computer preparation is part of every chesplayer agenda for 20 years. Doesnt mean much by itself. Examples like the Kramnik-Leko match on 2000 (I think), where one player prepares a position computer tells him he is winning and the opponent finds out, unprepared, over the board, thinking hard, that in fact the position is lost are still not uncommon. Opening novelties computers disapprove are still common. And the remarkable inability of computers to recognize drawing fortresses still leads to huge misevaluations.